Posts Tagged ‘FDIC’

600,000 or more Job Losses for February?

I have to tell you, the market this week has been downright pathetic.

There’s only so many flat days that I can stand before going insane.

Today marks the third day of range bound trading. And when I say rangebound, I’m not only talking the three major indexes. The dollar moved slightly higher against the Euro and yields on 10-year treasuries slightly moved higher. While gold and the commodity complex lost a little steam.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like everyone is just positioning themselves for the jobs report on Friday. Estimates are everywhere. I think the number will come in higher than expected.

And I wouldn’t be shocked to see the market hit new highs. But there’s a few reasons why the party shouldn’t even start.

We have to understand that the Fed is nervous about all the liquidity that’s out there. If the 4^th quarter GDP comes in in frothy and jobs are positive, the Fed will start pulling liquidity out of this market. The FDIC is already warning banks about interest rate risk. The FDIC wants banks to actually test huge jumps in interest rates – I mean 3-4% swings at a time – to make sure that the bank is sufficiently protected.

Why would the FDIC ask banks to protect themselves against such huge swings? I think the FDIC sees something it isn’t saying out loud…

In the end, the big risk is that the Fed pulls out money too quickly.

Another reason why celebrating too early might be foolish has to do with the jobs numbers.

You see, the jobs numbers are nothing more than a sampling that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does every month in order to gauge the overall health of the job market.

The Bureau then takes this sampling and applies a few filters to it. It tries to adjust for seasonality, and even adds or subtracts jobs based on “assumptions” of what’s happening to small businesses in the business cycle.

The result is that The BLS has been routinely added about 107,000 jobs a month since February. It’s the birth/death model.

But what happens in February is that the BLS ultimately makes an adjustment to the birth/death number for the previous year. At that time, we’ll probably see jobs decline as the BLS measures just how far off the mark they were. I’m not kidding when I say that the BLS could subtract 600,000 or more jobs.

If the stock market is expecting a positive job number, it will probably be disappointed. And it offers a catalyst for a correction in February.

Stuff to Read

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065MK20100107

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B92XZ20100107

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60432520100107

American Credit Crisis Returns January 1, 2010

Ever heard of FAS 167?

Most investor’s haven’t. Which means they aren’t aware that it could cause another credit collapse come January 1, 2010.

FAS 167 is a rule from the Financial Standards Accounting Board (FASB) that forces banks to put securitized off-balance assets back onto the balance sheet.

In other words, all of those failing mortgages and credit card assets that banks hold will be out in the open, for everyone to see the true value of. And banks will have to put more cash in loss reserves for these assets (some of which are deteriorating rapidly in value).

As you can imagine, banks are scared shitless.

From Fincriadvisor.com…

The American Bankers Association declared the NPR a disaster-in-the-making, noting that the effect of the proposal would be to require higher levels of risk-based capital against assets that pose minimal risk, diminishing the “resurgence of bank lending that is so critical to the restoration of a vital U.S. economy.” The ABA also noted that FAS 167 could force banks to account for billions in assets in investment funds managed for third parties.

Here’s what Freddie Mac had to say about it…

“Under these accounting standards [SFAS 166 & 167], the company will record the underlying mortgage loans in these single-family PC trusts and some of its Structured Transactions on its balance sheet. These mortgage loans have an outstanding unpaid principal balance of approximately $1.8 trillion as of Sept. 30, 2009… While Freddie Mac continues to evaluate the impacts of adoption, the company expects that the adoption could have a significant negative impact on its net worth.”

Wells Fargo isn’t happy either…

“I want to update you on our most recent analysis of the impact of the application of FAS 166 and 167, which is expected to result in the consolidation of certain off-balance sheet assets currently not included in our financial statements. We provided a preliminary analysis in our second-quarter 10-Q. Based on our continued refinement of this analysis, we now expect approximately $55 billion in incremental GAAP assets to be brought on balance sheet, representing approximately $28 billion in incremental risk-weighted assets… we continue to explore the sale of certain interests we hold in securitized residential mortgage loans, which would further reduce the amount of incremental GAAP assets and incremental risk-weighted assets.”

Up until now, banks have kept these assets off balance in special investment vehicles. As long as the assets were off balance, the banks could essentially make up a value for them, resulting in less cash going into loss reserves.

But you and I know better.

Banks in America are practically insolvent.

The only reason this hasn’t come out in the open is collusion between the banks and the government. Hell, the government even forced the FASB to lighten up on mark-to-market rules earlier this year in order to keep the banks solvent.

This collusion isn’t over, either.

From 12^th street capital…

A bit of good news for banks today. In a Bloomberg interview, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said that she is in favor of giving banks “some breathing room” to raise the additional capital that will be required to support the hundreds of billions of dollars of securitized assets that will be consolidated onto their balance sheets as as result of the implementation of FASB Statements 166 and 167. Bair said she hopes to have the matter voted on at the December 15 meeting of the FDIC’s board.

It’s obvious the FDIC is worried about this. And the reason is very simple: The FDIC is in charge of taking over any other banks that fail. So this rule could have a disastrous effect on the FDIC. They’d be inundated with failed banks and have too few resources to take care of them effectively.

At this point, the banks all know that FAS 167 is in the works. And to compensate for the insane amount of capital they’ll need to build to cover the losses on these new assets, banks have hoarded cash, slashed credit, and increased fees like crazy.

Banks are in survival mode. And FAS 167 is one big reason why consumer credit has dropped for 9 straight months.

We’ll find out on December 15 whether the banks will have more time or not before FAS 167 takes effect. In the meantime, it’s adding a lot of uncertainty. And even if the rule is pushed off by six months, all it does is buy the banks time – time to slash more credit and increase more fees in a vain attempt to raise more cash.