A candid meeting of minds about subjects varying from making money in the markets to the vagaries of the human psyche to the philosophical aspects of man and much more...
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Fiasco at JP Morgan Chase by Jeff Harrington
So, this did blow up in Jamie Dimon's face. I am impressed by two things.
- The speed with which it occurred.
- The losses that have been incurred thus far: $2 billion, which is $1 billion (100%) more than what Dick Bove estimated.
This is not what the market wants or needs to hear. Given that total losses are unknown, I am seriously thinking that if one owns JPM's stock that they should get out until the dust settles. I am very much so concerned that Dick Bove was off by so much and since the man on top has no idea, I can't help but feel like we are staring into another abyss; real or not. I understand this may be viewed as an overreaction, but I don't think it is because we just had one of the largest credit and banking crisis's in modern history and within four years the largest, and arguably the most important bank, is back to gambling like a casino. Do we really need to burn the house down to the ground in order to learn our lesson? Come on guys!
What is the lesson I am referring to?
Banks exist solely to match net savers with net borrowers, to hedge against the risk of default between the two, and to accept all of the downside through those losses while only being entitled to the limited upside of the interest spread. Sure, they can charge fees on other services to enhance revenue. But no more speculation and gambling. And let me state this, I do not believe that JPM was engaging in bon-a-fide hedging, because I doubt there would have been such excessive losses, if any, i.e., hedging. So, I conclude that JPM was gambling and trying to prove to the government that they knew what they were doing and that FinReg was an overreaction that needed to be watered down or repealed. Derivative speculation is not a viable business model from which a bank earns its revenues. That is a highly risky and highly volatile business that exists to hedge against legitimate risks. I know that traditional banking is not 'sexy', but it never was meant to be. Executives hate this because there is no 'sexy' upside via bonuses and lucrative stock options (I suspect bank stock returns would theoretically be tied to GDP growth and interest rates under this scenario). Banks can make money without really having to do or innovate anything. All you really need to run a bank is a computer, and maybe an ATM machine for anyone who still uses cash (not being snarky here, but more and more transactions are occurring via plastique). Innovation is a difficult task as it is and so the real risk takers get to take that challenge on by creating new businesses and innovating - and either being rewarded with huge upside or punished into bankruptcy. In other words, banks are not supposed to be innovators (or gamblers) of anything, just risk hedgers and, like a bookie (who never bets on any one game), they take the interest rate spread (grease). Being a bank is pretty easy and very profitable if you're good at it. This is purely an academic statement and yet we allow banking executives to subject us to this crap over and over again.
Whatever argument Dimon had against the regulators, and I would argue that Dimon was leading that pack when he did this, he just lost it...for good. That is what having egg on his face means. But note, I was never taking the stance that the point was whether or not this blows up in his face, but if the government does anything about it based off FinReg. Especially in an election year cycle. This may actually boost Obama... How much? I don't know. Again, JPM is a big bank that can stomach a lot and it depends on how bad the losses really are and how much the market makes of it. But, the media saw this one coming, reported on it, and the regulators did nothing...Smooth. Obama will argue that he is not to blame because the teeth on financial regulation were removed. The Republicans will argue that current regulation is enough and that the regulators were asleep under Obama's watch with the so-called enhanced FinReg, which they will then use to argue that there is too much regulation and that it is not working. Let the circus around this begin.
Both will have valid arguments I think, but the fact is that Glass-Steagle needs to come back in its full glory; that is to say, prevent banks from gambling with both their own money and their clients money. From there, we can probably scrap most other banking regulation with the exception of fair lending standards and fair credit reporting. I am not anti-capitalistic in saying this. But, quite the opposite. A healthy economy is absolutely dependent upon a healthy banking sector; If you blow up the banks, then you blow up the economy. Note: if Glass-Steagle is re-enacted, this will force JPM to break up - the Investment bank will we stripped off the company and formed as a separate entity. This will be a political hot potato. But, the banking executives have proven that they cannot handle the two diametrically opposed businesses well...twice in the last 4 years and more so over the long run.
The irony is that this has been my one and only major fear in the market over the past few months - that we are getting out of the crisis and the big banks are going right back to the slot machine to gamble everything away again. I am not too happy with this. Though, I erroneously believed that JPM knew what it was doing. Maybe it was because I am a former employee and was impressed with the team that I worked with (they were in the custody side of the business - trillions and trillions of dollars...not just billions).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ 2012-05-11/jpmorgan-loses-2- billion-as-mistakes-trounce- hedges.html?cmpid=yhoo
P.S. It wasn't a mistake for Dimon if he had been right and won. IT was greed. This will need to sting in order for him to learn. I know this from experience. And, I hope to god that this is simply a hic-up and not a full blown tempest that, when I er-read this to check for errors, I am fearing that this may be. But, I wonder if anyone else was out swimming naked. I would rather appear to be a blow-hard who is taking too much credit, than I would in being right. Because, if I am right then we all lose.
What is the lesson I am referring to?
Banks exist solely to match net savers with net borrowers, to hedge against the risk of default between the two, and to accept all of the downside through those losses while only being entitled to the limited upside of the interest spread. Sure, they can charge fees on other services to enhance revenue. But no more speculation and gambling. And let me state this, I do not believe that JPM was engaging in bon-a-fide hedging, because I doubt there would have been such excessive losses, if any, i.e., hedging. So, I conclude that JPM was gambling and trying to prove to the government that they knew what they were doing and that FinReg was an overreaction that needed to be watered down or repealed. Derivative speculation is not a viable business model from which a bank earns its revenues. That is a highly risky and highly volatile business that exists to hedge against legitimate risks. I know that traditional banking is not 'sexy', but it never was meant to be. Executives hate this because there is no 'sexy' upside via bonuses and lucrative stock options (I suspect bank stock returns would theoretically be tied to GDP growth and interest rates under this scenario). Banks can make money without really having to do or innovate anything. All you really need to run a bank is a computer, and maybe an ATM machine for anyone who still uses cash (not being snarky here, but more and more transactions are occurring via plastique). Innovation is a difficult task as it is and so the real risk takers get to take that challenge on by creating new businesses and innovating - and either being rewarded with huge upside or punished into bankruptcy. In other words, banks are not supposed to be innovators (or gamblers) of anything, just risk hedgers and, like a bookie (who never bets on any one game), they take the interest rate spread (grease). Being a bank is pretty easy and very profitable if you're good at it. This is purely an academic statement and yet we allow banking executives to subject us to this crap over and over again.
Whatever argument Dimon had against the regulators, and I would argue that Dimon was leading that pack when he did this, he just lost it...for good. That is what having egg on his face means. But note, I was never taking the stance that the point was whether or not this blows up in his face, but if the government does anything about it based off FinReg. Especially in an election year cycle. This may actually boost Obama... How much? I don't know. Again, JPM is a big bank that can stomach a lot and it depends on how bad the losses really are and how much the market makes of it. But, the media saw this one coming, reported on it, and the regulators did nothing...Smooth. Obama will argue that he is not to blame because the teeth on financial regulation were removed. The Republicans will argue that current regulation is enough and that the regulators were asleep under Obama's watch with the so-called enhanced FinReg, which they will then use to argue that there is too much regulation and that it is not working. Let the circus around this begin.
Both will have valid arguments I think, but the fact is that Glass-Steagle needs to come back in its full glory; that is to say, prevent banks from gambling with both their own money and their clients money. From there, we can probably scrap most other banking regulation with the exception of fair lending standards and fair credit reporting. I am not anti-capitalistic in saying this. But, quite the opposite. A healthy economy is absolutely dependent upon a healthy banking sector; If you blow up the banks, then you blow up the economy. Note: if Glass-Steagle is re-enacted, this will force JPM to break up - the Investment bank will we stripped off the company and formed as a separate entity. This will be a political hot potato. But, the banking executives have proven that they cannot handle the two diametrically opposed businesses well...twice in the last 4 years and more so over the long run.
The irony is that this has been my one and only major fear in the market over the past few months - that we are getting out of the crisis and the big banks are going right back to the slot machine to gamble everything away again. I am not too happy with this. Though, I erroneously believed that JPM knew what it was doing. Maybe it was because I am a former employee and was impressed with the team that I worked with (they were in the custody side of the business - trillions and trillions of dollars...not just billions).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
P.S. It wasn't a mistake for Dimon if he had been right and won. IT was greed. This will need to sting in order for him to learn. I know this from experience. And, I hope to god that this is simply a hic-up and not a full blown tempest that, when I er-read this to check for errors, I am fearing that this may be. But, I wonder if anyone else was out swimming naked. I would rather appear to be a blow-hard who is taking too much credit, than I would in being right. Because, if I am right then we all lose.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Meeting Minutes
We had a
wonderful meeting today at The Olive Garden! We had a total of 6 attendees: (from left to right) Nathaniel
Taylor, Elena Swindull, VJ Arjan, Jeff Harrington, Kevin Day and one more who
chooses to remain anonymous.
The Recession to Come
It
is a historical fact that a recession or a slowdown of some sort has occurred
in the US roughly every 4 to 6 years.
Also, the average bull market lasts about 2 ½ years. The current bull market that took off in
March 2009 has now lasted about 2 ¾ years.
It is therefore conceivable that some slowdown can be expected in the near
future.
We
all had a discussion on how this would play out. There was relative consensus that the
downturn would wait until after the election has been secured. There has only been 3 occasions in history
when the market indices ended up negative during an election year, one of which
was 2008.
Asked
whether the coming recession or slowdown would be worse than the last one,
Kevin Day answered that he did not see the slowdown as significantly
worse. It still may be one to reckon
with, but not with the same severity as the last one.
Although
there is some opinion amongst the board of the Federal Reserve that is opposed
to QE3, Kevin noted that there was little doubt that it would occur at some
point.
Leverage
The
exponential rise of the 1% has been mainly possible directly due to the
availability of credit for leverage.
Here is a case in point:
-
In
the 1970s, there was 1 billionaire, Mr. Ludwig, an America shipping magnate
-
In
the 1980s, there were 8 billionaires, a majority of them oilmen riding on the
coattails of the rising price of oil
-
Today,
there are publicly and privately, estimated to be 1,500 billionaires. About 30% have inherited their wealth.
Below
is a graph that illustrates what is occurring:
While the wave of technology has increased productivity, adjusted for inflation, real
wages have gone down relatively speaking for the last four decades.
(Mother Jones Magazine, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau)
The greatest absolute impact of the Great Recession of 2008 was upon the 1% that had gained their wealth with the help of massive amounts of credit. The de-leveraging process that occurred post-2008 was the cause.
The resurgence of Populism
VJ Arjan noted how history has a tendency to move in cycles and that the current cycle could mirror the Populist movement that started in the last 18th century and lasted up to the presidency of the “trust-busting” Theodore Roosevelt.
The Gilded Age, the era that preceded the Populist era, created the world’s first billionaires and centi-millionaires, including John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, John Pierpont Morgan, and Jay Gould. During that era, the average blue collar worker worked anywhere from 10 to 16 hours per day, while not seeing any significant rise in their wages.
The rebellion of these workers formed the labor unions that still exist today, demanding fair pay and a lighter work schedule. These were necessary reforms of the time.
Perhaps, today we are seeing this same reforming of the labor market pan out with the mass demonstrations in Greece and Spain and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US.
So, therefore, if history is any guide, perhaps we will be moving into a new normal for many years to come with more and more reforms to the labor market.
European Basketcase
There are many watershed events occurring in Europe that do will shape the future of the European Union for many years to come.
The Euro has certainly not responded well; below is a chart over the past month.
France
Jeff
Harrington discussed the policies and persona of the new French president,
Francois Hollande. His election only
puts more pressure on the European Union as he ran and got elected on a
platform that directly opposed taking on further austerity measures. As Jeff
put it, some of his economic policies put “the Left” to shame.
Jeff
also mentioned how it would be increasingly difficult for France to remain as a
part of the Union as their forecasted debt-to-GDP levels would continue to violate
the Maastrict Treaty. Of course, France
is not the only one that has violated these levels, all of the PIIGS have far
surpassed the minimum 60% debt-to-GDP levels laid out in the document, but they
are all participating in severe austerity measures in an effort to return to the 60% level specified in the treaty.
He
also has the reputation of not taking orders very easily, which would make it
very difficult for Merkel who has come out as the head-in-charge of this Euroland
rescue operation.
Spain
(The Puerta del Sol square in Madrid)
Last
week in Spain, a staggering 100,000 “indignants” crowded the streets of Madrid
in protest of the dismal economy and austerity measures that are being
undertaken. The unemployment rate has
recently hit a record 23.6% most of which are college graduates under the age
of 25.
Greece
With
mass unemployment, inflation at roughly 50%, and government paralysis in
dealing with the issues has prompted serious discussion for the first time that
the best course might be for Greece to exit the Eurozone. This would instantly
wipe out the bondholders who own Greek debt and lead to disastrous consequences
for Greece when they issued a badly deflated currency, perhaps reissuing the
drachma.
Eastern European countries
Surprisingly,
the newer market entrants to the Eurozone, like Poland and Romania, are performing
much better than their “more advanced” Western European counterparts.
Elena mentioned how the Slovak countries have done extra-ordinarily well after their entrance into the Euro. Jeff added that this is partly due to the relatively conservative economic leverage levels that they have sustained and also because production and manufacturing capacities, particularly for auto manufacturing, are being shifted from Western to Eastern European countries.
Flow of money
Jeff
noted that money has a tendency to flow from one asset class into other asset classes. At the present moment, he feels that the
smart money is flowing out of Europe and the emerging markets and into the U.S.
in hard assets like commodities and real estate. He particularly suggested looking at farmland
if you can find it cheap enough, as farmland is appreciating rapidly.
Beware the high yield dividend
Kevin
mentioned that just because a company is paying out a high dividend, does not
mean that it is a safe investment. Jeff mentioned
that often times a company will do this to exit a dying industry.
Of course, VJ didn’t know this when he invested in Cellcom Israel, which was touting a 12 percent dividend yield. He figured that because Cellcom is the biggest cellphone provider in Israel and cellphones aren’t going anywhere for a while, it would be a safe investment.
Here is what happened to the
stock recently:
VJ
pointed out that apparently due to some regulatory restrictions and increased
competition, the profits would be sharply diminished. The stock has dropped 60% in the last
year. It still touts a 12% dividend, but
on a significantly reduced stock price.
The
lesson here is to look at the whole stock before investing, instead of getting
caught on the lure of a dividend yield. If there
is a high dividend yield, it may be prudent to ask why the yield is so high.
Market plays
Here
are some market plays that were bought up during the meeting:
- Brigus Gold (BRD) - A Canadian junior gold miner
- Sandstorm Gold (SNDXD) - Negotiates contracts with gold miners for a percentage of
the profits; up 50% in the last year
- Westpac Bank (WBK) - Australian banking corporation with a 7% dividend yield
- Aberdeen Asia Fund (FAX) - a no-load income fund that invests in Asian debt securities
- iShares Preferred Stock Index Fund (PFF)
- Siemens (SI) - a multi-national conglomerate
- Brigus Gold (BRD) - A Canadian junior gold miner
- Sandstorm Gold (SNDXD) - Negotiates contracts with gold miners for a percentage of
the profits; up 50% in the last year
- Westpac Bank (WBK) - Australian banking corporation with a 7% dividend yield
- Aberdeen Asia Fund (FAX) - a no-load income fund that invests in Asian debt securities
- iShares Preferred Stock Index Fund (PFF)
- Siemens (SI) - a multi-national conglomerate
The
next meeting will be on Sunday, June 3rd, 2012.
For
those who have not attended a meeting, but would like to attend, please email
your wish to VJ Arjan at scarletkings@gmail.com
Also I find that there are many domestic and
international readers who are following our blog posts not only in the United
States but all over the world including Europe, Latin America, and Asia. If you
wish to be added to our email list, please email at scarletkings@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)