Picking Pockets

Ulli Uncategorized Contact


The markets received a lift yesterday on Warren Buffett’s proposal to buy out some of the bond insurers’ (monolines) liabilities. While this improved sentiment in the market place, I think it’s a case of Buffett trying to pick somebody’s pockets clean.

The man is obviously smart, and his offer will be beneficial for him but not for the mononlines. In essence, he’s offering to re-insure some $850 billion in municipal bonds. If the insurers agree to this, which I doubt, it means he’s getting all of the AAA holdings from their portfolio, but leaving the bond insurers stuck with the Subprime slime. Well, I can’t blame him for trying to pick up a good deal. Historically, muni bonds have a default rate of less than 1%, which makes this a low risk transaction.

The major bond insurers are facing downgrades due to more than $5 billion in losses caused by swaying form their original business models to insuring questionable Subprime related instruments.

Bottom line, this is a win-lose situation. The bond insurers are with their backs against a wall desperately trying to maintain their AAA ratings. Selling the profitable and non-problematic part of their portfolios and keeping the garbage will only hasten their demise.

However, the markets reacted euphorically as if this was the long-awaited answer to the credit crisis. It will not solve the underlying issues and the indexes ended up in split fashion with the Dow gaining 133 points, while the Nasdaq remained unchanged.

Even Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was unusually frank in his assessment during a question and answer session by saying that “in terms of Subprime the worst isn’t over; the worst is just beginning—and we all know that.” Not very reassuring!

Our Trend Tracking Indexes (TTIs) moved closer to their respective trend lines, but remain in bear market territory as follows:

Domestic TTI: -0.04%
International TTI: -7.57%

There is no change to our current market neutral position.

Counter Party Risk

Ulli Uncategorized Contact

With the unwinding of the credit bubble, new terminology has been thrown at the public at an amazing pace. One of the terms you hear more frequently as banks are writing down bad investments, is “counter party risk.”

Rob Roy’s article “Default Swaps Intensify Credit Crunch,” explores some of the details how leverage combined with abnormal events can have devastating effects on CDOs, SIVs and MTNs). Here are some highlights:

Abnormal events are magnified with financial leverage, and even normal events can become catastrophic with large amounts of leverage. This is clearly seen with the sub-prime and other low quality loans that were packaged into Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and then sold off to institutional investors thirsty for higher returns. Other financial “alchemy”, courtesy of Wall Street’s greatest quantitative minds included upwards of $300 billion of Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs). The SIVs took in a lot of mortgage paper (both commercial and residential), added some leverage to the recipe, and then issued a package of commercial paper/equity/junior notes/senior medium term notes (MTNs). These investments (We use this word loosely and prefer ‘derivatives’) were ‘stress tested’ for normal delinquency rates. Of course now they realize that these are not normal times.

My firm believes it is dangerous to use history as a guide in today’s complicated environment. Instead, we believe that we are now making financial history and when we look back twenty years from now, we will see today as the unwinding of the ‘Great Debt Experiment’. Which leads me to what we believe what is the greatest risk of all: Counterparty Risk. Counterparty risk, simply defined, is the risk that the other party in an agreement will default.

…Oh yes, the brokerage industry. If you think the banks are a mess, try taking a quick look at the balance sheets of companies like Lehman (LEH) and Bear Stearns (BSC). These companies have balance sheets that are literally 40 times their shareholder equity. They also own 3 times their equity in what is known as ‘Level 3 assets’—those that can’t be accurately priced, and can’t even be estimated based on a model. Level 3 is ‘mark to management’s best guess’. Best guess is better than what Citi’s CFO said when asked about its $60 billion of CDOs. On the investor conference call he stated that their positions were ‘marked to a reasonable stab’. I know this may sound as if I am making this up, but sadly, I am not. In Citi’s case, this was before they brought approximately $45 billion of SIVs back onto their balance sheet in late 2007. This explains why the banks, brokers, and insurance companies are constantly coming to market to raise fresh capital.

This cross-dependency on other institutions is why counter-party risk may be the next problem child to raise its ugly head and may be the greatest risk of them all. We have been hearing the murmurs of counter-party risk for the last several years. The last measure of the credit derivatives market is $45 trillion (yes with a T) which didn’t happen overnight. Like any big disaster, it didn’t reach its tipping point in an instant but rather built up over a substantial time period where warnings were not heeded.

The risk isn’t just that the other party to your derivative trade suffers a financial meltdown and can’t pay. Counter-party risk really seems to take on three types of events. In the most widely understood event, a trade in which you are winning and are owed money by the counter-party isn’t paid to you because of their inability. This first risk is pretty simple, but even so these kinds of failures may cause you enough pain to pass the problem down the line by creating an inability on your part to pay your obligations. This is a daisy chain effect.

The second kind of counter-party risk is that these private transactions which are agreed to in complicated legal documents have not been properly documented. Many credit derivative transactions don’t simply involve two parties but are often times the risk is passed from one party to the next several times. When an event occurs it causes a careful examination of the complicated legal documents which spell out the specifics of solving a default event.

Case in point is today’s news that AIG’s stock tumbled on heightened CDO concerns:

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC said AIG had a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting and oversight related to the valuation of a derivatives portfolio owned by AIG Financial Products Corp., a unit of AIG, the company said in a regulatory filing.

AIG’s Financial Products unit sold similar guarantees on CDOs, using credit-default swaps (CDS), which are a type of derivative-based insurance that pays out in the event of a default. It sold “super senior” CDS that guaranteed higher quality parts of CDOs.

But as the credit crunch widened, the market value of even the best parts of some CDOs have declined. The complexity of these securities and a slump in trading activity has made them tricky to value, adding to concerns.

AIG could end up paying out as much as $10 billion from the CDS it has sold on CDOs, which is about 10% of the insurer’s net worth and roughly three quarters of earnings, Matt Nellans, an equity analyst at Morningstar, wrote in a note to clients on Monday.


Still, market-based valuation changes within this portfolio don’t necessarily mean AIG will end up paying the same amount to settle its obligations, the analyst added. Ultimate losses depend on the number and severity of defaults on the assets that back the CDOs the insurer has guaranteed, he explained.

AIG’s exposure to riskier securities known as mezzanine CDOs are more worrying, Nellans said, noting that the company had roughly $19 billion of such exposure at the end of September.

AIG again guaranteed the highest-rated parts of these securities, but they are backed by riskier underlying assets, he explained.

“In the event the underlying securities fail a cash-flow test or are downgraded, the remaining cash flows will be diverted from the lower-rated AIG insured tranches to the higher-rated tranches,” Nellans wrote.

“AIG could withstand a total loss on this $19 billion of exposure, but it would wipe out 19% of the firm’s equity and about 15 months of earnings,” he added.

Again, any guarantee is only as good as the entity backing it up and, in the case of CDOs, provided there is even a market into which to sell. As many banks and brokerage houses have found out, buyers are hard to find and discounts are steep. Short of a drastic change, this means that more write-downs are coming, which will contribute to a continuation of the credit crisis until all skeletons are out of the closet.

Housing Bubble Trouble

Ulli Uncategorized Contact

With all of the serious front page news about the housing bubble, let’s today look at the lighter side of what happened from they eyes of a few musicians who put to together this music video called “Housing Bubble Trouble:”


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivp4YqGCI-s]

Sunday Musings: Looking For Guilt

Ulli Uncategorized Contact

It was just a matter of time. With losses from the Subprime/credit/housing fallout continuing to grow with no end in sight, lawsuits had to happen eventually. Surely, if you look long and hard, and get the right lawyers involved, you will find that lies were told, not all facts disclosed and investment risks downplayed.

MarketWatch reports in “U.S. widens probe, seeks Merrill information:”

Federal prosecutors, expanding their look into Wall Street firms’ mortgage businesses, asked the Securities and Exchange Commission for information that the agency has collected on Merrill Lynch & Co., The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

Citing people familiar with the situation, The Journal called the Justice Department’s interest “preliminary” but said sources told the newspaper that the U.S. attorney’s office request could be a precursor to a criminal investigation.

The Justice Department’s move comes after the SEC upgraded its own investigation into a formal probe, the paper reported. Moreover, the FBI is looking into dealings at 14 different firms and the way they did mortgage business.

Last week, authorities in Massachusetts charged Merrill and two of its employees with fraud in connection with securities it sold to the city of Springfield, Mass., which collapsed in value shortly after they were sold.

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have been probing activities at Bear Stearns Cos. after two funds run by that firm lost more than $1 billion over the summer. The Brooklyn prosecutors are also investigating Swiss banking giant UBS over its firing of a trader who, according to an earlier report, had clashed superiors over how to value mortgage securities.

Lawyers said any investigation of this sort would likely take years, not months, as regulators attempt to put together solid evidence to make their case.

“The government has a lot of hard work ahead of it in attempting to put together a case of this kind,” said Michael McGovern, a former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense lawyer for Ropes and Gray in New York. McGovern cautions that the complexity of a case of this sort could make it hard for federal regulators to find a smoking gun to prove misconduct.

If regulators can find conclusive proof of wrongdoing, any targets of the probe will probably have settled the lawsuit before then, experts said, as corporate boards attempt to put an end to the matter. The chances of Merrill seeing its employees indicted are also slim, unless they prove uncooperative with federal investigators.

“After the Arthur Andersen debacle, they wouldn’t indict anyone unless the current management is giving them a hard time,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a lawyer specializing in white collar crime who conducted the grand jury questioning of President Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation.

“My guess is that current management will bend over backward to give them anything they want, because there are so many sanctions available to the government,” Wisenberg said. “They will be very cooperative if they are smart.”

Political expediency, too, could be a factor in an increasing number of these types of cases. With the subprime mortgage mess fresh on the minds of many lawmakers — and their constituencies — the temptation to find a scapegoat could be too hard for many legislators to resist.

But lawyers cautioned against any attempt to legislate a quick fix.

“It’s important to remember that 20/20 hindsight is not evidence of guilt,” McGovern said. “Just because everything went bad doesn’t mean anybody did anything wrong. It follows every tragedy in the marketplace that people start calling for scalps and the government increases its energy trying to find someone to blame.”

While I am not in favor of frivolous lawsuits, it appears that some of the events justify an involvement as outlined above. Let’s hope that, if eventually certain parties are found guilty, serious penalties are handed down and not just a warning accompanied by a token fine and an extracted promise not to commit the same offense again.

Muni Debt: Bridges To Nowhere?

Ulli Uncategorized Contact

Jon Markman wrote an excellent article about “The big threat of muni debt.” In a previous post, I mentioned that the credit crisis can very easily spread to the muni market by various means, but most likely through a downgrade of some of the large bond insurers.

What could be the effect on municipal bonds? Here are some highlights from Jon’s article:

Stocks rallied in the last week of January on the hint of a glimmer of a sliver of hope that a series of big U.S. interest-rate cuts and the prospect of modest tax-rebate checks would mend all the rips in world credit and consumer-product markets and open a clear path to better days.

So far in February, though, this tooth-fairy scenario has been rudely interrupted by the harsh reality that startling dangers remain in the wings, just waiting their turn, and are likely to emerge vividly enough over the next month or two to spook investors and send stocks below their January lows and beyond. Bulls didn’t really think they were going to escape bears so easily, did they?

The culprit this time is probably going to come hurtling in from a corner of the finance world least expected to give anyone grief: the formerly sleepy world of municipal finance, or the conduit through which cities and states pay for civic infrastructure. It may be hard to believe that your local roads, bridges and sewers could have a connection to the crisis that has rocked world financial markets in the past eight months, but this could be one of the worst threats yet.

Here’s the problem: Citizens have for decades empowered their towns, states, school districts and regional mass-transit agencies, among others, to issue debt to pay for all the niceties of modern transportation, education and public health that we take for granted. These long-term obligations, which you may know as municipal bonds, or munis, are backed by civic agencies’ taxation powers. The agencies nick local homeowners and other consumers for a few cents here and there on sales taxes, property taxes and use taxes, and it adds up to enough cash flow to pay off the debts.

For the most part, this is a lovely setup, and there have been ridiculously few defaults on the debts over the decades. But because virtually all local governments are treated like country bumpkins by Wall Street, they aren’t accorded the top-quality ratings, known as AAA or AA, that would allow their debts to be sold to safety-seeking money market funds, private investors or overseas pension funds.

As a result, local governments for years have bought a type of guaranty known as a wrap from companies called monoline insurers. These insurance companies essentially agree to wrap their own AA or AAA ratings around the municipalities’ lower ratings, allowing the bonds to be sold easily in the global marketplace. The monoline insurers thus have had one of the greatest free lunches of all time: They’ve collected billions in premiums from muni issuers yet rarely, if ever, paid a claim.

Because the monoline business was so profitable, the biggest insurers decided a few years back to spread their wings a little and branch out into the business of guaranteeing some riskier credits. Egged on by ratings agencies that wanted them to diversify away from the poky world of munis, executives at Ambac Financial Group (ABK, news, msgs), MBIA (MBI, news, msgs) and PMI Group (PMI, news, msgs) threw common sense out the window and persuaded their boards and shareholders that they could guarantee a new type of highly leveraged debt we have come to know as the evil villains in the past year’s credit psychodrama: collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

CDOs, you may recall, are those bundles of high-yield securities backed by subprime home mortgages, subprime auto loans, credit cards and the like that have dripped acid all over the world financial system in the past year. As many mortgage holders have stopped making payments on loans amid rampant home foreclosures across the United States, the securities underlying the CDOs have been downgraded left and right by the ratings agencies — in many cases from AAA all the way down to junk-bond status in a single swat.

As you can imagine, these downgrades make the CDOs too risky for pension funds to hold, but they are illiquid and hard to sell. Holders have therefore obsessed over whether the monolines would make good on their insurance policies in the event of default and have concluded they are so frightfully undercapitalized that payoffs are unlikely. So the insurers have found themselves under the microscope of ratings agencies, which have been threatening for the past couple of months to downgrade their high ratings. Because high ratings are all they have to sell, Ambac and MBI shares have plunged 84% and 79%, respectively, since early October as their business prospects have collapsed and their solvency has deteriorated.

Now this is where it starts to get ugly for cities and states — which means you and me.

In many cases, munis are sold as part of “tender option bond,” or “put bond,” derivatives. In these programs, which became very popular among hedge funds in this decade because their low risk profiles permitted a lot of leveraging, a bond could be tendered back to the issuer if any of a variety of troublesome events triggered, ranging in severity from a default to a ratings downgrade. The programs required the issuer to buy the bonds back at par, or face value.

If the monoline insurers that guarantee the bonds lose even one notch of their high ratings, then every one of the hundreds of thousands of munis they have underwritten over the years likewise loses its high rating. And that would be an event that could lead bondholders to attempt to tender the bonds back to issuers. Only cities and states don’t have anywhere near the tens of billions of dollars it would cost to buy them back. They would need to issue more debt at higher interest rates, and, well, you can see this can spiral way out of control.

If you thought that the current credit/housing crisis was slowly but surely being brought under control, think again. As one reader stated: This whole credit problem is like an octopus with an indefinite number of tentacles and no brain. No one can foresee how this will play out or when the next shoe is going to drop.

I for one will not invest in tax-free municipal bonds at this time because I have no way of knowing or assessing what effect the issues addressed in this story will have on individual holdings.


Currently, we only have a tiny exposure to munis for a couple of clients, and I am planning to liquidated those holdings fairly quickly. As one famous investor once said: I am more interested in the return of my money than the return on my money. Given the financial times we are living in, these are wise words to live by.

No Load Fund/ETF Tracker updated through 2/7/2008

Ulli Uncategorized Contact

My latest No Load Fund/ETF Tracker has been posted at:

http://www.successful-investment.com/newsletter-archive.php

A poor non-manufacturing index report along with continued worries about the financial health of bond insurers had the bears chomping at the bit. The major indexes dropped sharply.

Our Trend Tracking Index (TTI) for domestic funds/ETFs moved to -0.84% below its long-term trend line (red), back into bearish territory.



The international index dropped to -8.35% below its own trend line, keeping us in a sell mode for that arena.

For more details, and the latest market commentary, as well as the updated No load Fund/ETF StatSheet, please see the above link.