Showing posts with label F. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

NYC Foreclosures Surge 79%; Most Since 2009

A few weeks ago we noted that New York"s "smart money" at a variety of U.S. banking institutions were tripping over each other to underwrite dividend recaps for owners of expensive commercial real estate projects just as buyers of those properties suddenly dried up completely (see: NYC Commercial Real Estate Sales Plunge Over 50% As Owners Lever Up In The Absence Of Buyers).  But we"re sure it was nothing...the 27-year-old analysts leading those bank deals, fully syndicated deals in which their respective employers will retain no risk by the way, probably just know more about the commercial real estate market than those who count themselves among the list of former prospective buyers.


Still, it does seem odd that the commercial real estate market in NYC is collapsing at the same time that residential foreclosures are surging to levels not seen since the 2009 crisis.  As Property Shark points out today, foreclosures across NYC surged 79% YoY in Q3 2017, to 859, and remain at the highest levels since the "great recession."



All 5 boroughs registered increases in the number of homes scheduled for auction, though Staten Island, the Bronx, and Brooklyn saw numbers skyrocket compared to Q3 2016, up 264%, 145% and 118%, respectively.



Meanwhile, the eastern neighborhoods of Brooklyn and the Bronx seem to be the most impacted as Staten Island foreclosures are rising fairly uniformly.



And here is a more in-depth look at the individual boroughs...


Bronx:





A record-high number of homes were scheduled for auction in Q3 2017, representing a 145% increase compared to Q3 2016. The number of cases in the Bronx kept relatively at the same levels for the past quarters with a spike in Q2 2016 but otherwise hovering around 100 homes per quarter or even lower than that. Back in the second quarter, the Bronx was the only borough that recorded a year-over-year decrease in foreclosure activity. The situation changed drastically in Q3 2017 when 247 homes were scheduled for the first time.



Zip code 10469 had the highest number of new foreclosures: 32 homes were scheduled here in Q3 2017. Not far behind, zip codes 10462, 10473, 10466, and 10465 all had close to 30 new cases each, showing a concentration of foreclosure activity in the eastern half of the borough. The graph below captures the evolution in the number of cases and the spike recorded this previous quarter.




Brooklyn:





While compared to the previous quarter’s count of 264 homes scheduled for auction, Q3 2017 seems to have brought some respite for Brooklyn, the number of homes headed for auction is still high. Q3 2017 brought a 118% year-over-year jump, given that 205 homes were headed for the auction block. When looking at Q3 2016, only 94 new foreclosures were recorded in the borough.



Zip code 11236, covering Canarsie, had the most cases filed – 31 homeowners here saw their homes scheduled to be auctioned in Q3 2017. East NY, Canarsie, and the Flatlands are usually the scene for the highest number of cases in Brooklyn, but this time we noticed increases in Southern Brooklyn zip codes as well. For example, in 11229 there were only 4 first-time foreclosures in Q3 2016, compared to 15 in Q3 2017. Bed-Stuy’s 11233 also recorded a jump in cases from 2 in Q3 2016 to 10 in Q3 2017.



The first three quarters of 2017 were particularly harsh for Brooklyn homeowners, especially compared to the numbers we tracked over the past years. While in 2016 there were a total of 410 homes scheduled for auction in the borough, with only 3 quarters elapsed from 2017, there have already been 637 new foreclosures. Check out the graph below for a detailed, by-quarter evolution of first-time foreclosures in Brooklyn.




Staten Island:





Historically, Staten Island had low numbers of homes heading for the auction block, but the second quarter of 2017 brought a record-high number: 105 first-time foreclosures were scheduled. In Q3 2017, the number went down 24% quarter-over-quarter, but it was up 246% year-over-year. That’s also due to the fact that Q3 2016 only had 22 cases, which was low even for what we’re used to seeing each quarter in Staten Island.




Queens:





Back in Q3 2016, Queens accounted for almost half of new foreclosure cases in NYC, as 227 of the 481 new foreclosures in the city were recorded in Queens . The first two quarters of 2017 brought a high number of cases with a peak in Q2. In the third quarter of 2017, however, foreclosures in Queens dropped 26% quarter-over-quarter and settled in at 288 cases.



Though still up 27% compared to Q3 2016, Queens is now far from having around half of all NYC cases, mainly as a result of the increases recorded in Brooklyn and the Bronx. In Q3 2017, the number of new foreclosures in each of the two boroughs was close to reaching the one recorded in Queens.



Queens also used to be home to the top zip code by number of foreclosures – Jamaica’s 11434 consistently had a high number of cases each quarter. This time, there were 29 first-time foreclosures in 11434, fewer than the numbers recorded in the top zip codes for both Brooklyn and the Bronx.





Not surprisingly, the only folks that haven"t experienced a surge in foreclosures are the bankers and hedgies living in Manhattan who continue to benefit from bubbly markets growing bubblier by the day...at least for now.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Billionaire Banker David Rockefeller, Former Head Of Chase Manhattan, Dies At 101

David Rockefeller, the famous banker and philanthropist with the family name that controlled Chase Manhattan bank for more than a decade and wielded vast influence around the world in the world of finance, has died on Monday morning at his home in Pocantico Hills, N.Y. He was 101.


A family spokesman, Fraser P. Seitel, confirmed the death.


Below is an exccerpt of his obituary from the NYT:


Chase Manhattan had long been known as the Rockefeller bank, though the family never owned more than 5 percent of its shares. But Mr. Rockefeller was more than a steward. As chairman and chief executive throughout the 1970s, he made it “David’s bank,” as many called it, expanding its operations internationally.


His stature was greater than any corporate title might convey, however. His influence was felt in Washington and foreign capitals, in the corridors of New York City government, art museums, great universities and public schools.


Mr. Rockefeller could well be the last of an increasingly less visible family to have cut so imposing a figure on the world stage. As a peripatetic advocate of the economic interests of the United States and of his own bank, he was a force in global financial affairs and in his country’s foreign policy. He was received in foreign capitals with the honors accorded a chief of state.


He was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the tycoon who founded the Standard Oil Company in the 19th century and built a fortune that made him America’s first billionaire and his family one of the richest and most powerful in the nation’s history.


As an heir to that legacy, Mr. Rockefeller lived all his life in baronial splendor and privilege, whether in Manhattan (as a boy he and his brothers would roller-skate along Fifth Avenue trailed by a limousine in case they grew tired) or at his magnificent country estates.


Imbued with the understated manners of the East Coast elite, he loomed large in the upper reaches of a New York social world of glittering black-tie galas. His philanthropy was monumental, and so was his art collection, a museumlike repository of some 15,000 pieces, many of them masterpieces, some lining the walls of his offices 56 floors above the streets at Rockefeller Center, to which he repaired, robust and active, well into his 90s.


In silent testimony to his power and reach was his Rolodex, a catalog of some 150,000 names of people he had met as a banker-statesman. It required a room of its own beside his office.


Spread out below that corporate aerie was a city he loved and influenced mightily. He was instrumental in rallying the private sector to help resolve New York City’s fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s. As chairman of the Museum of Modern Art for many years — his mother had helped found it in 1929 — he led an effort to encourage corporations to buy and display art in their office buildings and to subsidize local museums. And as chairman of the New York City Partnership, a coalition of business executives, he fostered innovation in public schools and the development of thousands of apartments for lower-income and middle-class families.
He was always aware of the mystique surrounding the Rockefeller name.


“I have never found it a hindrance,” he once said with typical reserve. “Obviously, there are times when I’m aware that I’m treated differently. There’s no question that having financial resources, which, thanks to my parents, I learned to use with some restraint and discretion, is a big advantage.”


Ambassador for Business


With his powerful name and his zeal for foreign travel — he was still traveling to Europe into his late 90s — Mr. Rockefeller was a formidable marketing force. In the 1970s his meetings with Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt, Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union and Zhou Enlai of China helped Chase Manhattan become the first American bank with operations in those countries.


“Few people in this country have met as many leaders as I have,” he said.


Some faulted him for spending so much time abroad. He was accused of neglecting his responsibilities at Chase and failing to promote aggressive, visionary managers. Under his leadership Chase fell far behind its rival Citibank, then the nation’s largest bank, in assets and earnings. There were years when Chase had the most troubled loan portfolio among major American banks.


“In my judgment, he will not go down in history as a great banker,” John J. McCloy, a Rockefeller friend and himself a former Chase chairman, told The Associated Press in 1981. “He will go down as a real personality, as a distinguished and loyal member of the community.”


His forays into international politics also drew criticism, notably in 1979, when he and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger persuaded President Jimmy Carter to admit the recently deposed shah of Iran into the United States for cancer treatment. The shah’s arrival in New York enraged revolutionary followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, provoking them to seize the United States Embassy in Iran and hold American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Mr. Rockefeller was assailed as well for befriending autocratic foreign leaders in an effort to establish and extend his bank’s presence in their countries.


“He spent his life in the club of the ruling class and was loyal to members of the club, no matter what they did,” The New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in 2002, citing the profitable deals Mr. Rockefeller had cut with “oil-rich dictators,” “Soviet party bosses” and “Chinese perpetrators of the Cultural Revolution.”


Still, presidents as ideologically different as Mr. Carter and Richard M. Nixon offered him the post of Treasury secretary. He turned them both down.


After the death in 1979 of his older brother Nelson A. Rockefeller, the former vice president and four-time governor of New York, David Rockefeller stood almost alone as the remaining family member with an outsize national profile. Only Jay Rockefeller, a great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, had earned prominence as a governor and United States senator from West Virginia. No one from the family’s younger generations has attained or perhaps aspired to David Rockefeller’s stature.


“No one can step into his shoes,” Warren T. Lindquist, a longtime friend, told The Times in 1995, “not because they aren’t good, smart, talented people, but because it’s just a different world.”


A Privileged Life


The youngest of six siblings, David Rockefeller was born in Manhattan on June 12, 1915. His father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., the only son of the oil titan, devoted his life to philanthropy. His mother, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, was the daughter of Nelson Aldrich, a wealthy senator from Rhode Island.


Besides Nelson, born in 1908, the other children were Abby, who was born in 1903 and died in 1976 after leading a private life; John D. Rockefeller III, who was born in 1906 and immersed himself in philanthropy until his death in an automobile accident in 1978; Laurance, born in 1910, who was an environmentalist and died in 2004; and Winthrop, born in 1912, who was governor of Arkansas and died in 1973.


David, the youngest, grew up in a mansion at 10 West 54th Street, the largest private residence in the city at the time. It bustled with valets, parlor maids, nurses and chambermaids. For dinner every night his father dressed in black tie and his mother in a formal gown.


Summers were spent at the 107-room Rockefeller “cottage” in Seal Harbor, Me., weekends at Kykuit, the family’s country compound north of the city in Tarrytown, N.Y. The estate was likened to a feudal fief. As Mr. Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography, “Memoirs” (2002), “Eventually the family accumulated about 3,400 acres that surrounded and included almost all of the little village of Pocantico Hills, where most of the residents worked for the family and lived in houses owned by Grandfather.”


In that bucolic setting he developed a fascination for insects that would lead to his building one of the largest beetle collections in the world.


David was 21 when John D. Rockefeller died. “He told amusing stories and sang little ditties,” Mr. Rockefeller recalled in 2002. “He gave us dimes.”


His sense of noblesse oblige was heightened by his early education at the experimental Lincoln School in Manhattan, founded by the American philosopher John Dewey and financed by the Rockefeller Foundation to bring together children from varied social backgrounds. He went on to study at Harvard, receiving his B.S. in 1936, and then spent a year at the London School of Economics, a hotbed of socialist intellectuals. Mr. Rockefeller was awarded a Ph.D in economics from the University of Chicago in 1940.


Moved by the Great Depression at home and abroad, he stated in his doctoral thesis that he was “inclined to agree with the New Deal that deficit financing during depressions, other things being equal, is a help to recovery.” The notion that a Rockefeller would take such a liberal economic view was major news; the family, rock-ribbed Republican, was known for its fierce opposition to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the New Deal’s author.


After receiving his doctorate, Mr. Rockefeller became a secretary to Fiorello H. La Guardia, New York’s pugnacious, liberal Republican mayor. In 1940, he married Margaret McGrath, known as Peggy, whom he had met at a dance seven years earlier, when he was a Harvard freshman and she was a student at the Chapin School in New York. His wife, a dedicated conservationist, died at 80 in 1996. They had six children: David Jr., Abby, Neva, Margaret, Richard and Eileen. A complete list of his survivors was not immediately available.


Mr. Rockefeller enlisted in the Army in 1942, attended officer training school and served in North Africa and France in World War II. He was discharged a captain in 1945.


He began his banking career in 1946 as an assistant manager with the Chase National Bank, which merged in 1955 with the Bank of Manhattan Company to become Chase Manhattan. Banking in the early postwar era was a gentleman’s profession. Top executives could attend to outside interests, using social contacts to cultivate clients, while leaving day-to-day management to junior officers. Mr. Rockefeller found plenty of time for such activities. In the late 1940s he replaced his mother on the Museum of Modern Art’s board and eventually became its chairman. He courted art collectors. In 1968, he put together a syndicate, including his brother Nelson and the CBS chairman, William S. Paley, to buy Gertrude Stein’s collection of modern art. David and Peggy Rockefeller’s own prized paintings — by Cézanne, Gauguin, Matisse, Picasso — were lent to the museum permanently.


Expanding a Bank Globally


Mr. Rockefeller’s rise in banking was swift. By 1961 he was president of Chase Manhattan and its co-chief executive with George Champion, the chairman. Promoting expansion overseas, Mr. Rockefeller clashed with Mr. Champion, who thought that the bank’s domestic business was more important. After Mr. Rockefeller replaced Mr. Champion as chairman and sole chief executive in 1969, he was able to enlarge the bank’s presence on almost every continent. He said his brand of personal diplomacy, meeting with heads of state, was crucial in furthering Chase’s interests.


“There were many who claimed these activities were inappropriate and interfered with my bank responsibilities,” Mr. Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography. “I couldn’t disagree more.” His “so-called outside activities,” he insisted, “were of considerable benefit to the bank both financially and in terms of its prestige around the world.”


By 1976, Chase Manhattan’s international arm was contributing 80 percent of the bank’s $105 million in operating profit. But instead of vindicating Mr. Rockefeller’s avidity for banking abroad, those figures underlined Chase’s lagging performance at home. From 1974 to 1976 its earnings fell 36 percent, while those of its biggest rivals — Bank of America, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover and J..P. Morgan — rose 12 to 31 percent.


The 1974 recession hammered Chase, which had an unusually large portfolio of loans in the depressed real estate industry. It also owned more New York-related securities than any other bank in the mid-1970s, when the city was edging toward bankruptcy. And among major banks, Chase had the largest portfolio of nonperforming loans.


Chase also got caught up in a scandal in 1974. An internal audit discovered that its bond trading account was overvalued by $34 million and that losses had been understated. A resulting $15 million drain in net income tarnished the bank’s image. In 1975, the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency branded Chase a “problem” bank.


Even as he struggled to reverse Chase Manhattan’s decline, Mr. Rockefeller found time to address New York City’s financial problems. His involvement in municipal affairs dated to the early 1960s, when, as founder and chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, he recommended that a World Trade Center be built.


In 1961, largely at his instigation, Chase opened its 64-story headquarters in the Wall Street area, a huge investment that helped revitalize the financial district and encouraged the World Trade Center project to proceed.


In the mid-1970s, with New York City facing a default on its debts because of sluggish economic growth and uncontrolled municipal spending, Mr. Rockefeller helped bring together federal, state and city officials with New York business leaders to work out an economic plan that eventually pulled New York out of its crisis.


Continued reading at the NYT

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Trump Administration Rolls Back Obama Protections On Student Loans...Sorry, Snowflakes

Just days after reports emerged that student loan defaults are soaring, which is undoubtedly due to some combination of, among other things, poor job prospects for the millions of snowflakes who graduate each year with their $200,000 educations in anthropology and the moral hazard created by liberal politicians constantly calling for student debts to be "forgiven" (a.k.a. forcefully jammed down the throats of taxpayers), the Trump administration has revoked rules put in place by Obama that barred student debt collectors from charging penalty fees on past-due loans.


Originating from the Department of Justice, the "Dear Colleague" letter (full letter included at end of post) says that Obama"s unilateral rules implemented in 2015 could have "benefited from public input"...but what good is being King if you can"t unilaterally force new laws on the masses? Per the Washington Post:





The Education Department is ordering guarantee agencies that collect on defaulted debt to disregard a memo former President Barack Obama’s administration issued on the old bank-based federal lending program, known as the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. That memo forbid the agencies from charging fees for up to 16 percent of the principal and accrued interest owed on the loans, if the borrower entered the government’s loan rehabilitation program within 60 days of default.



The Obama administration issued the memo after a circuit court of appeals asked for guidance in a case against United Student Aid Funds (USA Funds) challenging the assessment of collection costs. Bryana Bible took the company to court after being charged $4,547 in collection costs on a loan she defaulted on in 2012. Though she had signed a “rehabilitation agreement” with USA Funds to set a reduced payment schedule to resolve her debt, the company assessed the fees.



Education officials sided with Bible, prompting USA Funds to sue the department in 2015. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $23 million to settle a class-action lawsuit born out of the Bible case, though it did not admit any wrongdoing.



DeVos



Of course, it didn"t take long for Elizabeth Warren to draft a letter to the Education Department urging them to not take away "freebies" from America"s entitled snowflakes.





On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) sent a letter urging the Education Department to uphold the Obama administration’s guidance on the collection fees, which they said “results in an unnecessary financial burden on vulnerable borrowers.”



“Congress gave borrowers in default on their federal student loans the one-time opportunity to rehabilitate their loans out of default and re-enter repayment,” the letter said. “It is inconsistent with the goal of rehabilitation to return borrowers to repayment with such large fees added.”



Of course, these new rules came just days after new data published by the U.S. Department of Education revealed that $137 billion of federal student loans were in default as of December 2016, a 14% year-over-year increase.  Key findings from the Consumer Federation of America:





Average amount owed is $30,650 per federal student loan borrower. Average amount owed per borrower continues to tick up, rising 17% since the end of 2013, when borrowers owed on average of $26,300.



$137 billion in default. For federal loans originated by financial institutions (FFEL) and the US Department of Education (Direct), a total of $137.4 billion in balances were in default, a 14% increase from 2015. This cumulative level of defaulted balances includes loans which defaulted in previous years. Defaulting on a federal student loan comes with severe consequences. Borrowers can face seizure of their tax refund, garnishment of their wages, and an inability to pass employment verification checks.



1 million Direct Loan defaults in 2016. In 2016, 1.1 million Federal Direct Loan borrowers defaulted. Federal law typically defines a federal student loan default as being 270 days past due. Borrowers defaulting for the first time slightly decreased compared to 2015, though borrowers re-defaulting slightly increased compared to 2015.



 Seems the cost of financing those spring break trips to Cancun just got a little costlier...sorry, snowflakes.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Ukraine Has Lost Billions On The Trade Agreement With The EU In Year One

Via GEFIRA,


The Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the European Union, which came into force on 1 January 2016, was aimed at helping the East European economy to recover; however, the results after the first year fell far short of Ukraine’s expectations. The former Soviet Republic lost €2.2 billion more than it lost in 2015 on trade with the EU. While imports from the EU have surged, exports have barely grown.


As Polish media reports, the European Union has flooded Ukraine with goods, which is contrary to the aim of the free trade agreement: the document assumed the asymmetric openness of the markets in Ukraine’s favour. 


According to the Eurostat data, EU’s exports to Ukraine grew in 2016 by 17.6%, from €14bn to €16.5bn, whereas Ukraine’s exports to the EU increased by 1.9%, i.e. from €12.8bn to €13bn. As a result, Ukraine’s trade deficit with the EU has surged from €1.2bn to €3.43bn!



It seems that the Ukrainian economy was absolutely unprepared, especially in times of war in Donbass, to compete with Western enterprises. The GEFIRA team explains the problem of the destruction of Ukraine’s economy in the latest GEFIRA Bulletin. It is going to take years until Ukrainian businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized, are prepared to switch from Russian to Western orientation and it is going to be very costly if not lethal to Ukrainians.


On the other hand, Moldova was able to use the free trade agreement properly and has decreased its trade deficit with the EU by a half, even though, pro-Russian political forces continue to gain ground in the country.


Senator Grassley Launches Probe Into FBI Ties With British Spy Behind "Trump Dossier"

It took less than 24 hours for republicans to strike back at James Comey"s unexpected revolt against Donald Trump on Sunday afternoon, when as the NYT first reported the FBI director had demanded that the DOJ reject Trump"s accusations it was wiretapping the Trump Tower (the DOJ has still not done so, and questions are still being asked why Comey himself did not do as he requested especially since any FISA court order would have come from the FBI).


Senator Chuck Grassley, the republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has opened a probe into allegations the FBI worked with the British spy who authored the controversial opposition research dossier - which at various points was funded by both an unnamed democrat and republican - on President Trump during the 2016 election.  In a letter to Comey, Grassley asked for records pertaining to any agreements the agency may have had with Christopher Steele. As a reminder, the former MI6 agent wrote an explosive memo on behalf of Trump’s political enemies alleging that the Russians had compromising information on the president.


Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the memo in a private meeting in January. Shortly after, several news organizations published the unverified allegations, which the White House denied; BuzzFeed controversially posted the whole memo, for which it has since been taken to court. 


In late February, The Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement with Steele whereby the British spy would continue his investigation on behalf of the bureau.


“While Trump has derided the dossier as "fake news" compiled by his political opponents, the FBI’s arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproved, to be worthy of further investigation,” the Post, which has been spoon-fed every piece of leaked wiretapped information involving the Trump administration, reported at the time.


However, today Grassley pushed back and demand the FBI provide information relevant to its relationship with and use of the British spy, whose salacious allegations - among which an infamous golden shower scene involving hookers - have infuriated Trump and his allies.


“The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for President in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,” Grassley wrote.


“It is additionally troubling that the FBI reportedly agreed to such an arrangement given that, in January of 2017, then-Director Clapper issued a statement stating that ‘the [intelligence community] has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.’”


In his letter, Grassley asks for all records regarding Steele’s investigation, details of the agreement between the FBI and Steele, the FBI’s policies for using outside investigators, and whether the bureau has relied on any of the information Steele has provided in seeking warrants.


Grasley also wants to know how the FBI obtained a copy of Steele’s documents, whether it has additional documents that were not published by Buzzfeed, and whether any FBI activity was influenced by the Steele memo.


Among Grassley"s  list of questions comes what could be the most devastating of his inquiries, considering President Trump’s accusation that the Obama administration wiretapped his 2016 presidential campaign:





Has the FBI relied on or otherwise referenced the memos or any information in the memos in seeking a FISA warrant, other search warrant, or any other judicial process? Did the FBI rely on or otherwise reference the memos in relation to any National Security Letters? If so, please include copies of all relevant applications and other documents.



“National Security Letters” are one of the FBI’s most secretive instruments for obtaining information. They are frequently accompanied by powerful gag orders which forbid the recipient of the letter from discussing it.


We look forward to the FBI"s response in the matter, as the law enforcement organization, and its boss, scramble to prove to both republicans and democrats that it is not - as many allege - politically tainted beyond salvage.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

45 Trillion Reasons Why Gary Cohn Has Recused Himself From All Goldman Matters

Goldman"s former President and COO, who was recently picked to be Trump"s chief economic advisor as head of the National Economic Council, will recuse himself from any matters directly involving his former employer, the White House told the Financial Times.


The topic emerged when the FT learned that the former "#2" at Goldman was spearheading Goldman"s lobbying at the US derivatives regulator on rules prompted by the role swaps contracts played in the 2008 financial crisis. As president of Goldman Sachs, Cohn attended four meetings in 2015 and 2016 with top officials at the CFTC to discuss the swaps rules mandated by the sweeping Dodd-Frank reforms, according to meeting records.



As the FT adds, Cohn’s most recent CFTC meeting as a Goldman representative was on February 19 2016, according to the records. On the same day Trump was campaigning in South Carolina, where he mocked Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton by saying Goldman Sachs had “total control” over them. He ended his campaign by airing an anti-Wall Street ad that displayed an image of Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein as Mr Trump talked of “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class”.


The FT asked about the meetings and their implications for ethics rules for White House staff, to which a White House spokesperson said: “consistent with the stringent ethics rules established by the Trump Administration, Mr Cohn will recuse himself from participating in any matter directly involving his former employer, Goldman Sachs. He will also recuse himself from any matter or potential rulemaking before the CFTC in which Goldman Sachs has participated.”


While it is admirable that Cohn will recuse himself from Goldman-linked matters (it begs the question is Mnuchin who is a former Goldman employee will do the same), a problem emerges: since Goldman has tentacles, so to say, in every aspect of the economy, does that mean that Cohn"s tenure in the White House will be one long, self-imposed recusal vacation?


One thing that is clear: Cohn may have no say on what has emerged as the most actionable acticity in Trump"s early administration - rolling back Dodd Frank and Obama"s Wall Street regulations.





As head of the National Economic Council, Mr Cohn is a Trump appointee shaping a rollback of financial regulation in the White House, a role that could have given him considerable sway over the derivatives rules on which he lobbied. Goldman remains unhappy with those rules today.



Democrats warn that Mr Trump, who derided Goldman in his campaign, is creating an administration that will consciously or otherwise pay more heed to the needs of Wall Street than the “forgotten men and women” who he said elected him.



One can safely say that they are not wrong in this regard, and Cohn"s recent actions confirm it.


Cohn, who started at Goldman as a derivatives trader, was by far the most senior executive from any bank to visit the regulator in the past two years, according to the records. “He was the tip of Goldman’s spear to get the regulations rolled back,” said Dennis Kelleher, head of Better Markets, a pro-regulation campaign group that tracks Goldman’s activities in Washington.


Mr Cohn stood by Mr Trump’s side this month as he signed an executive order to start work on loosening the Dodd-Frank act, which introduced a far-reaching new regime for derivatives regulation.


This week Gregory Palm, Goldman’s general counsel, responded to Cohn-related questions from the Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin by telling them in a letter that the bank had “no involvement in the drafting of any executive orders, nor did we receive any advance notice of their issuance”.


Some more details about Cohn"s direct involvement in swaps regulation





Two of Mr Cohn’s CFTC meetings as Goldman’s president were with Chris Giancarlo, then a CFTC commissioner and now the regulator’s acting chairman and a leading candidate to take the job permanently, the records show. The White House declined to comment on the substance of any of Mr Cohn’s four CFTC meetings, which it said happened when Mr Cohn was a “private citizen”. But a White House spokesperson said Mr Cohn and Mr Giancarlo were “old friends”.



The records show Mr Cohn’s CFTC meetings concerned rules on the collateral, or margin, that swaps market participants have to post as a first line of defence against the risk of default when trading over-the-counter products away from exchanges.



Not surprisingly, Cohn"s "friend" Giancarlo, who worked at a brokerage active in derivatives before joining the CFTC in 2014, has been an outspoken critic of some CFTC swaps rules issued under former chairman Tim Massad, an Obama appointee who stepped down this month.


Why Goldman"s interested in derivatives?


Two reasons: the simpler, more innocuous one, as the FT points out and as we have shown repeatedly over the years, is that Goldman derives a higher proportion of income from trading than its peers and the global derivatives market, with a notional value of $500tn, is a vital engine of that business. The margin rules have made OTC swaps trading more capital intensive and pushed some clients towards less lucrative standardised products on exchanges.





A Goldman spokesman said: “Our clients have concerns about changes to the rules governing the global swaps market, and we have conveyed those views to regulators so that they can create a more stable financial system that can effectively meet our client’s needs for risk management.”



Actually it may not be Goldman"s "clients" - it is much more likely Goldman itself: two people familiar with Mr Cohn’s CFTC meetings said the Goldman executive was concerned about the models used to calculate margin requirements and about which cross-border trades the requirements would apply to. The CFTC’s final rules were released in two batches in December 2015 and May 2016.


As to Goldman"s absolutely gargantuan exposure to derivatives, the answer is contained in the quarterly OCC report: as of September, the total notional amount of Goldman’s derivatives contracts — an indication of trading volume, according to the bank — stood at $45.8 trillion, roughly the same as Citi"s $48.7 trillion and JPMorgan’s $51.5 trillion, and more than Bank of America"s $35 trillion. There was one major difference: while JPM and Citi had total assets of $2.5 and $1.8 trillion respectively, Goldman had a tiny, by comparison, $880 billion: BofA? $2.2 trillion.



In light of how thinly capitalized the bank with the third largest amount of notional derivatives is, one can see why Trump"s chief economic advisor has been so focused on derivative "reform."

Sunday, February 19, 2017

"There's Something Weird Going On": Jeff Snider On The Global Dollar Shortage

The first time we explained that one of the biggest risks facing a world in which the dollar is the reserve currency is a global USD shortage, was in mid-2009, when we wrote "How The Federal Reserve Bailed Out The World."


At the time, the IMF calculated that just ahead of the financial crisis, "major European banks’ US dollar funding gap had reached $1.0–1.2 trillion by mid-2007. Until the onset of the crisis, European banks had met this need by tapping the interbank market ($432 billion) and by borrowing from central banks ($386 billion), and used FX swaps ($315 billion) to convert (primarily) domestic currency funding into dollars." The IMF then extrapolated that "were all liabilities to non-banks treated as short-term funding, the upper-bound estimate would be $6.5 trillion."



Since then the shortage, which some have dubbed a potential multi-trillion dollar margin call, has only grown and became a prominent issue back in March of 2015, when this phenomenon was used to explain why the cross-currency swap had plunged to multi-year lows. As JPM explained at the time, "the fx basis reflects the relative supply and demand for dollar vs. foreign currency funds and a very negative basis currently points to relative shortage of USD funding or relative abundance of funding in other currencies. Such supply and demand imbalances can create big shifts in the fx basis away from its actuarial value of zero."


Fast forward a year and a half later, when none other than the Bank of International Settlements, or the "Central canks" central bank", warned last November that it was no longer the VIX that was the widely accepted barometer of market "fear", it was now the dollar"s turn to become the global fear gauge: "just as the VIX index was a good summary measure of the price of balance sheet before the crisis, so the dollar has become a good measure of the price of balance sheet after the crisis. The mantle of the barometer of risk appetite and leverage has slipped from the VIX, and has passed to the dollar."



Shortly thereafter we once recapped the main risks emerging from this increasingly more prominent threat to global financial stability, and wondered at what point would the Fed finally address this risk pointed out not only by this website for nearly 8 years, but also by the BIS, in a post which piggybacked on the recent work by ADM ISI"s Paul Mylchreest, who has made tracking the global dollar shortage one of his primary objectives.


* * *


Now, in an exhaustive, 70 minute interview, submitted by Patrick Ceresna at MacroVoices.com, another prominent analyst who has been closely tracking the global dollar shortage, Alhambra Partners" Jeffrey Snider sat down with Erik Townsend to explain - once again - why this is such a critical topic, even if it comes at a time of unprecedented global complacency (it"s amazing what record high stock prices will do to concerns - or lack thereof - about the future).


As Snider puts it, while most other risk indicators imply smooth sailing, "there is "something" weird going on" when it comes to dollar funding and global imbalances of the world"s reserve currency, i.e., dollar shortage.


  • In the interview, among the many topics covered, are

  • Understanding the Eurodollar Money Market

  • Swap Spreads and Interbank Hierarchy

  • Dimensions in the Eurodollar Futures and Eurodollar Money Supply

  • Why does the World Need So Many Dollars?

  • How the Eurodollar market supplanted the Bretton Woods System

  • U.S. Dollar and the Dollar Funding Gap

  • Reflation Trade Debunked

  • Interest Rates Trapped

  • Failing Global Currency System

While we urge readers to listen to the full interview below, here are some of the highlights, starting with "why the Dollar shortage a symptom of an inherently unstable system."


As Snider explains, "the dollar shortage isn"t so much the shortage per se, it’s the fact that it"s a symptom of what is an inherently unstable system." He notes that "the reason banks are withdrawing from the system is that it"s just is no longer tenable" and "so there has to be some kind of – whether you want to look at it like another Bretton Woods – conference, a global monetary system, a global monetary get together where people start to analyze solutions to the problem as they are rather than keep trying to apply band aids that are not going to work. "


But, he concludes, "step one of that task is to actually recognize the problem as it is and so doing more stimulus or doing more QE isn"t going to solve anything it isn’t do anything just like prior QEs and prior stimulus haven"t done anything either because the problem is an unstable system."



* * *


Snider focuses on the Eurodollar system, which he defines as a problem of "decay and dysfunction" and explains that "nothing ever happens in a straight line even the Eurodollar problem has not been a singular event. It’s not been a decade long straight line of decay and dysfunction." 



He goes on to say that the fact that after enough time these markets have adjusted to the fact that the economy"s going to be bad for a very long time until something actually changes and so true reflation is predicated on something actually changing rather than the hope that something might change.



Looking at history, Snider observes that "what happened in July 2008 obviously was the fact that everyone decided almost all at once that wasn"t the right interpretation of what the Fed was doing nor was it the right interpretation of the dollar system overall. So, that reflation ended in reality which was the dollar system was eroding and it was eroding in a very dangerous way and that"s why oil prices essentially crashed from July till I think January 2009."


An implication of the ongoing reserve currency funding shortage is that, according to Snider, despite the occasional blip (arguably funded by massive Chinese credit creation), "reflation is going to fail and there’s nothing the Fed can do about it." He goes on to state that "until they fix the global dollar problem we"re not going to fix the global economy and so we"re kind of stuck gyrating between various levels of really bad. We go from the lack of recovery to what looks like a global recession to the lack of recovery and back again" as a result he thinks that "reflation is going to fail."



Snider also said that "because of how they"ve defined the last ten years" even the Fed "no longer believes that it"s in its interest to do anything." He agrees and sais that "there"s nothing that the Fed can do about it."


"In other words, we want them to start considering the global currency system and how it actually is operating and failing rather than their stylized academic approach which doesn"t apply. And until they"re actually convinced that there is a role for the central bank in that condition output gap or not, we"re kind of stuck."


The failure to stimulate benign inflation is captured on the next two charts which show "why this version of ‘reflation’ is so far less than even 2013’s version."




His troubling assessment: "I hate to think of what the next decade might look like because history is not very kind in these kinds of situations where you have prolonged periods of stagnation."


* * *


Putting it all together, Snider goes on to say that the Eurodollar futures market in particular is saying is that "if the Fed is going to raise rates it’s not to raise rates for a long or it’s not going to be able to raise rates for long." Echoing a warning we - and many others have made on many occasions - Snider says that if the yield curve happens to invert again "if they ever get that far" then it will "immediately be like in 2005 or 2006 all over again it won"t stay that way for very long either the market will force the Feds’ hand or the Fed will realize the error and correct it. What"s important about this is that "in each of these reflation episodes you can clearly see the market"s faith in that reflation diminishes each time for these very reasons that we"re talking about because these markets have become attuned to the fact the Fed isn"t exactly what everybody thought it was, monetary policy isn’t what everybody thought it was."



Snider summarizes by saying that "the fact that these markets realize that there"s a problem in Eurodollar system, there"s no banking to be had, no additional marginal banking capacity being added and without it none of these stuff really matters, none of these other stuff really matters. That"s the only thing that truly matters" and concludes gloomily that "the probability scenarios for economic and financial future are much darker now than they were three years ago."


* * *


Snider"s full interview can be heard below (Here is a link to the entire podcast transcript):


The embed code for this episode can be found here.



We also urge listeners to follow along using Snider"s prepared slides presented below.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Vanity Fair Uses Janet Yellen’s Testimony to Bolster Dodd-Frank and Slam Trump


Via The Daily Bell



THE CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE JUST FACT-SHAMED DONALD TRUMP ... Janet Yellen reveals the president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Dodd-Frank. Yellen doesn’t have time for this amateur-hour presidency. - Vanity Fair



According to Vanity Fair the “incredible” businessman Donald Trump doesn"t understand much about how the dollar or the larger economy.


He had questions for Mike Flynn about the dollar at three in the morning and over the weekend Economic Council director Gary Cohn needed to tell Trump that administration’s big infrastructure plan was going to be costly.


Janet Yellen has debunked Trump more generally. She did it as part of remarks before Congress dealing with Dodd-Frank, which she said, contary to Trump"s perspective, actually has been part of a lending surge, post 2008.


In fact, it rose 75 percent since 2010, the year Dodd-Frank was passed. This is much different than Trump"s contention that Dodd-Frank had been part of a regulatory surge that depressed growth.


“They’re lending,” Yellen as quoted as saying. “Their price-to-book ratios are substantially higher than the ratio of banks headquartered in other areas, and they"re gaining market share, and they remain quite profitable.”


Yellen also said, reportedly, that, “Lending has expanded overall by the banking system, and also to small businesses.  U.S. banks are generally considered quite strong relative to their counterparts. They"ve built up quite a bit of capital, partly as a result of our insistence that they do so.”


Trump"s perspective is that Dodd Frank had put considerable restraints on those who had tried to borrow post-2010.growing the money they need for their “nice businesses.”


Yellen has been accused by Trump of keeping rates artificially low during the campaign to benefit former president Obama and Hillary Clinton as well. It is one of a series of complaints about the Federal Reserve and its power over the economy.


Dood-Frank itself is not a new issue. It"s been seen as too intrusive for years. It mandates a good deal of extra paperwork for no conceivable purpose. This is one big reason Trump wants to repeal it.


Additionally, it does tend to lower how much businesses can borrow and spend, especially smaller businesses.


Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole fabric of American business at this point is beholden to the Federal government starting with money itself.


Yellen is responsible for the Federal Reserve which runs money on behalf of the federal government. Vanity Fair doesn"t mention that but it should. The Fed, by regulating rates, determines how far and fast the economy will travel. Every part of the larger economy is in a sense beholden to the Fed. Other regulations such as Dodd Frank just add to the control.


If Janet Yellen really wanted to be honest about whether regulations are stifling the economy, she would begin with the Fed itself. She would explain the Fed is involved in a form of price fixing and that regulations themselves are an extension of that.


She would admit that the Fed itself ought to be disbanded and that a broad cross sections of regulations ought to follow.


The Vanity Fair piece is duplicitous when it attempt to justify Dodd-Frank as necessary legislation when it is nothing of the sort. And they use the testimony of the nation"s price-fixer-in-chief to make their case. They think the Fed is a necessary economic component and they think the same when it comes to Dodd-Frank. They ought to study what is really going on before they make broad assertions.


But unfortunately making broad assertions unbacked by knowledge is a good deal more fun than doing the hard work of understanding the shaky American economy.


When the economy finally collapses, as indeed it shall, Vanity Fair, like other glossy, illiterate publications, will find some other unregulated corner to blame it on. That"s how things work.


They continue to have a steady supply of innumerate journalists. That"s one group that our journalism schools add to every year.


Conclusion: Their numbers are growing, along with the number of illiterate remarks by magazines. The supply, unfortunately, is related.

Mike Flynn May Face Felony Charges For Lying To The FBI

The FBI had no problem letting Hillary Clinton off the hook despite numerous attempts to hide the truth; Mike Flynn may not be so lucky.


Earlier today, media reports hit that FBI agents interviewed Michael Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.


While it is not clear what he said in his interview, the FBI now adds that investigators "believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said." That avenue raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job, and which Sean Spicer explained today was merely a matter of Trump "losing trust" in his Security advisor, because if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge", even though some have questioned how an illegally obtained transcript of his phone conversation could be admissable as evidence in a court of law.



The NYT adds that it was shortly after the F.B.I. interview, on Jan. 26, that the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, told the White House that Flynn was vulnerable to "Russian blackmail" because of inconsistencies between what he had said publicly and what intelligence officials knew to be true, as the WaPo reported last night, launching the sequence of events that ultimately led to Flynn"s resignation. At issue is a conversation during the presidential transition in which Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador about sanctions levied against Russia by the Obama administration. The call spurred an investigation by the FBI into whether Flynn had violated the rarely invoked Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the United States.


It was here that the NSA, which routinely eavesdrops on calls involving high-ranking foreign diplomats, got involved and recorded the phone call. While officials have said that Flynn was not a focus of the eavesdropping, in retrospect that now appears suspect.


Meanwhile, as clouds gather over Flynn, the White House battled Tuesday to insulate Donald Trump from the scandal over a top aide"s contacts with Russia, as calls grew for an independent investigation. Trump"s young presidency has been "thrown into turmoil", according to the AFP, after the forced resignation of his national security advisor and long-time supporter Michael Flynn.





The White House said that after weeks of internal investigation - which turned up no wrongdoing but "eroded" trust - Trump had requested and accepted Flynn"s resignation late Monday. Flynn is the third Trump aide to step back amid questions about his ties to Russia since the mogul began his improbable White House bid.



The unprecedented early resignation of a key member of staff has rocked an administration already buffeted by leaks, infighting and legal defeats. Amid the tumult, the White House denied that Trump had instructed Flynn to discuss the possibility that Obama-era sanctions would be rolled back.



"No, absolutely not. No, no, no," said White House spokesman Sean Spicer, when asked whether such a conversation took place.


Spicer said the president "instinctively thought that General Flynn did not do anything wrong and the White House counsel"s review corroborated that," adding that the counsel "determined that there is not an illegal issue, but rather a trust issue." "The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable instances is what led the president to ask for General Flynn"s resignation."


In his first public defense following last night"s tumultuous events, Flynn told The Daily Caller before his resignation on Monday that he "crossed no lines" during his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. In an effort to defend himself, Flynn pointed to the government leaks about his December conversation as a factor that led to the media furor. He described them as part of a larger trend of government leaks in this administration.


Trump agreed on Tuesday morning when he took to Twitter to insist that "The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?"


Spicer echoed his boss" statement saying "People who are entrusted with national security secrets, classified information, are leaking it out. That"s a real concern for this president" and then he pivoted toward Russia. As reported previously, Spicer next insisted that Trump "has been incredibly tough on Russia." In a new clear shift in sentiment, and a hardening of the US line on Russia, Spicer added that "President Trump has made it very clear he expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea."


The State Department meanwhile expressed concern that Russia is in breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, after reports that Moscow had deployed an operational ground-launched cruise missile unit.


For now, the White House"s efforts are likely to do little to mitigate Congressional concerns about Russia"s influence in US politics. On Tuesday the White House admitted the president had known as early as January 26 that Flynn may have made misleading statements, apparently contradicting Trump"s statement last Friday that he was unaware of the issue.


Republicans and Democrats in Congress have now called for an investigation into what occurred, although they differ sharply on the scope and powers. "This. Is. Not. Normal." said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, insisting "Trump owes Americans a full account" of his administration"s dealings with Moscow before and after the 2016 election.


Making things worse for the president, the US Senate"s top Republican Mitch McConnell said it was "highly likely" that Flynn would have to testify before an intelligence panel, potentially heaping pressure on Trump. The CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies have already investigated Moscow"s influence over the 2016 vote, concluding the Kremlin tried to sway it in Trump"s favor.


Various committees in the Republican-controlled Congress are looking into Russia"s election-related hacking and the Trump campaign"s links to Moscow.


For now the focus shifts on the pressing issue at hand - Flynn"s immediate replacement: as discussed this afternoon, after Flynn quit, the White House said Trump had named retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg, a decorated Vietnam war veteran who was serving as a director on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be interim national security advisor. However, as both WaPo and the NYT reports, the person who has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Flynn is Vice Admiral Robert Harward, a senior naval officer who served under President Donald Trump"s Defense Secretary James Mattis.


Harward is the Chief Executive Officer for Lockheed Martin in the UAE - in which this role "he is responsible for all aspects of the company’s business interests in the UAE, including strategy, operations, growth and execution of Lockheed Martin programs"

Friday, February 10, 2017

Fitch Warns Trump Administration Could Lead To Global Economic Disaster

Twice in one week.


Just days after ECB president Mario Draghi (and other Europeans) suggested that Trump"s proposed deregulation has "sown the seeds of the next financial crisis", when he told the European Parliament that "the last thing we need at this point in time is the relaxation of regulation. The idea of repeating the conditions that were in place before the crisis is something that is very worrisome", clearly ignoring that one of the biggest timebombs facing the world is his own balance sheet... 



... moments ago Trump was also preemptively cast as the scapegoat for the next global economic crash by none other than rating agency Fitch.


In a self-explanatory report titled "The Trump Administration Poses Risks to Global Sovereigns", Fitch is sounding the alarm on the potentially negative consequences of Trump"s economic policies, even though none have been officially disclosed yet.


In the report Fitch warns that "the Trump Administration represents a risk to international economic conditions and global sovereign credit fundamentals" and cautions that because "US policy predictability has diminished, with established international communication channels and relationship norms being set aside", this raises the "prospect of sudden, unanticipated changes in US policies with potential global implications."


Before it unleashes its criticism, Fitch concedes that elements of President Trump"s economic agenda "would be positive for growth, including the long-overdue boost to US infrastructure investment, the focus on reducing the regulatory burden and the possibility of tax cuts and reforms, assuming cuts don"t lead to proportionate increases in the government deficit and debt. One interpretation of current events is that, after an early flurry of disruptive change to establish a fundamental reorientation of policy direction and intent, the Administration will settle in, embracing a consistent business- and trade-friendly framework that leverages these aspects of its economic programme, with favourable international spill-overs."


However, it then quickly shifts to laying out the negatives, which it believes are more likely to prevail:





The primary risks to sovereign credits include the possibility of disruptive changes to trade relations, diminished international capital flows, limits on migration that affect remittances and confrontational exchanges between policymakers that contribute to heightened or prolonged currency and other financial market volatility. The materialisation of these risks would provide an unfavourable backdrop for economic growth, putting pressure on public finances that may have rating implications for some sovereigns. Increases in the cost or reductions in the availability of external financing, particularly if accompanied by currency depreciation, could also affect ratings.



It then explains that base case is not favorable, noting that in Fitch"s view, "the present balance of risks points toward a less benign global outcome."





The Administration has abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, confirmed a pending renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, rebuked US companies that invest abroad, while threatening financial penalties for companies that do so, and accused a number of countries of manipulating exchange rates to the US"s disadvantage. The full impact of these initiatives will not be known for some time, and will depend on iterative exchanges among multiple parties and unforeseen additional developments. In short, a lot can change, but the aggressive tone of some Administration rhetoric does not portend an easy period of negotiation ahead, nor does it suggest there is much scope for compromise.



The rating agency warns that sovereigns most at risk from adverse changes to their credit fundamentals "are those with close economic and financial ties with the US that come under scrutiny due to either existing financial imbalances or perceptions of unfair frameworks or practices that govern their bilateral relations"As a result, nations that could suffer include Canada, China, Germany, Japan and Mexico, which have been identified explicitly by the Administration as having trade arrangements or exchange rate policies that warrant attention, "but the list is unlikely to end there." Here Fitch takes a stab at Mexico saying that "our revision of the Outlook on Mexico"s "BBB+" sovereign rating to Negative in December partly reflected increased economic uncertainty and asset price volatility following the US election."


Fitch also cautions that as a result of proposed protectionist policies, "the integrative aspects of global supply chains, particularly in manufactured goods, means actions taken by the US that limit trade flows with one country will have cascading effects on others. Regional value chains are especially well developed in East Asia, focused on China, and Central Europe, focused on Germany. "


Curiously, Fitch also takes a detour into Trump"s most controversial policy to date, his immigration executive order, and says that tighter immigration controls and possible deportations "could have meaningful effects on remittance flows, as the US has the world"s largest immigrant population." Here Mexico would be most in danger as "Mexico share the world"s top migration corridor and have the largest bilateral remittance flows." Relative to GDP, remittances are even larger for Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, all of which receive most inflows from the US.


Finally, Fitch warns about the risk to retaliatory measures in the form of offshore direct investment in the US, and says that "countries hosting US direct investment at least part of which has financed export industries focused back on the US, are at risk of being singled out for punitive trade measures."


The list of these countries is potentially long, since US-based entities account for nearly one-quarter of the stock of global foreign direct investment. Countries with the highest stock of US investment in manufacturing are Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Mexico, Germany, China and Brazil.


In short, one wrong policy by the Trump administration, and the carefully constructed house of cards, built over decades of globalization, is in danger of collapse, resulting potentially in a global economic crisis.


And so, after two official warnings by some of the most established institutions, Trump has been officially put on notice that should anything bad happen to the world economy, it will be his fault, as all those who lit the burning fire, quietly wash their hands.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Mnuchin Dashes Banker Hopes That Prop Trading Is Coming Back

What a difference a week makes.


On January 23, Reuters reported that dialing back the Volcker Rule which limits banks" ability to engage in speculative investments using their own balance sheet, has emerged a top priority for President Donald Trump"s nominee for U.S. Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin.  In written responses to questions posed by members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, Mnuchin said he would use his role as head of the interagency Financial Stability Oversight Council to give the Volcker Rule a stricter definition of proprietary trading.


At issue is the Volcker Rule, a contentious provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that sought to prevent lenders from putting federally-insured deposits at risk through wagers on stocks, bonds and other assets.





"As Chair of FSOC I would plan to address the issue of the definition of the Volcker Rule to make sure that banks can provide the necessary liquidity for customer markets and address the issues in the Fed report," Mnuchin wrote in the document, which also included senators" questions and was verified by a Senate aide.



According to Reuters, Mnuchin also said that "regulators have applied proprietary trading prohibitions to too many activities" adding that "In the responses Mnuchin also made it clear he believes the rule should only apply to "a bank that benefits from federal deposit insurance." The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees retail deposits at about 6,000 banks, including the consumer banking arms of the country"s largest investment banks."


Just a few days later, in a follow up to Mnuchin"s written responses, this time from Bloomberg, the interpretation of his statement was 180 degrees opposite, and as Bloomberg reported, "Steven Mnuchin made clear he doesn’t want Wall Street banks getting back into the business of making risky market bets with their own capital, after Senate Democrats pushed him to clarify his responses to questions they asked during his confirmation process to be Treasury secretary."


Why the difference? Because in the span of just two days, Mnuchin appears to have flip-flopped on Volcker:





Mnuchin’s updated comments, which Bloomberg News obtained, were made after several Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee felt his earlier responses weren’t adequate, according to a Jan. 25 letter that Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote to Utah’s Orrin Hatch, the panel’s Republican chairman.



It appears that the biggest variance between the two sets of responses had to do with the new Treasury Secretary"s outlook on prop trading. Mnuchin"s Bloomberg added that in his written remarks to lawmakers, "Mnuchin said that even banking units that lack a government backstop should be restricted from making speculative trades." 





“A legal distinction between the insured and non-insured entity is an important factor in eliminating risky activities within the institution that has” insured deposits, Mnuchin said in an amended response to a senator’s question about Volcker. “I do not believe that the uninsured entity should be able to perform proprietary trading."



If Bloomberg"s interpretation of Mnuchin"s statement is accurate, it could cause substantial headaches for bank investors, many of which have priced in substantial deregulation, among which the return of the Volcker rule, as banks were once again expected to have free reign in a Dodd-Frank free environment.


* * *


In addition to Volcker, Mnuchin also weighed in on the issue of how to reform America’s GSE in particular, and mortgage-finance system in general, a topic that has huge consequences for the multitrillion mortgage industry and the fate of shareholders who’ve invested billions of dollars in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In his response, Mnuchin wrote that “any solution will be dependent upon the GSEs being capitalized properly and other such controls that eliminate risk to taxpayers.”





The answer could cheer some advocates of preserving Fannie and Freddie, including investors, small lenders, and some affordable housing groups. Over the past few years, those groups tried to convince the Obama administration to allow the companies to rebuild capital to no avail. In the days after President Donald Trump’s surprise election win in November, his advisers pledged to dismantle Dodd-Frank and cut regulations broadly.



Mnuchin took a softer tone at his hearing before the Finance Committee. He said he mostly favors making changes to rules put in place in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, not repealing the law entirely. In his amended responses to the Finance panel, Mnuchin said he’d like to use “empirical assessments” to monitor the effects Dodd-Frank has had on the finance industry. He also said that he’ll advocate that any rules needed to protect “public safety” shouldn’t be included in the regulatory freeze Trump has ordered across all federal agencies.



* * *


Assuming that Mnuchin"s harsher, second set of responses is accurate, it may also be one of the reasons for today"s bank stock selloff, as yet another significiant decoupling between the post-Obama reality and the Trump hope was gently squeezed, prompting traders just how much will really change under Trump who is increasingly getting bogged down in day to day scandals and minutiae - involving both republicans and democrats - that have little to do with his economic promises, something which infurated none other than Matt Drudge earlier today.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Here's Why America's Drug War Has Been An Epic Failure

Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,


The U.S. government’s efforts against illicit drugs have finally run their course. With over one trillion dollars wasted over the past several decades and nothing to show but failure, taxpayers are beginning to ask a simple yet pertinent question: Is it time to end the bottomless funding of this utterly ineffective anti-drug crusade?


With a $29 billion budget for the 2017 fiscal year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has secured vast resources to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). With a sizeable budget — $2.8 billion in 2015 — the agency tasked with the chore of enforcing “the controlled substances laws and regulations … and [bringing] to the criminal and civil justice system … organizations and principal members of organizations involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States” has continued to be the number one drug warrior within the federal government. But the DOJ’s Criminal Division, which is tasked with overseeing multiple offices, also houses the Organized Crime and Gang Section (OCGS), an agency that specializes in “developing and implementing strategies to disrupt and dismantle” gangs and organized crime, including drug trafficking. The 2017 budget for the Criminal Division alone is $198.7 million, which represents a “9.3 percent increase over 2016.”


Over the years, these agencies have time and again been tasked with capturing drug lords and low-level sellers, attempting to put an end to the flow of illicit substances into the country. But despite the copious amounts of resources used in this task alone — whether it’s through the DEA, the OCGS, or even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — illicit substance use (and abuse) has only grown across the country.


According to data released by the federal government, for example, “[a]vailability of methamphetamine remains high as evidenced by its accounting for the largest percentage of drugs identified from law enforcement seizures and its declining wholesale price.” And yet, President Barack Obama requested an increase in funding for agencies such as the DEA, FBI, and OCGS.



Despite these agencies’ failures, the supply of other substances, like heroin, has also increased.


With overdose rates doubling in most states between 2010 and 2012 and a staggering 28,000 Americans dying of opioid overdoses in 2014, it’s hard to understand the logic behind increasing the budget for an agency or group of agencies working unsuccessfully around the clock to put a stop to the drug trafficking business. Are these agencies helping to stop the flow of illicit drugs by enforcing current laws, or are they making the problem even greater by forcing users to rely on the black market?


In the real world, where employees of businesses or non-public organizations have to demonstrate proficiency in their trade to remain employed, these institutions are unable to keep their doors open if they are not delivering results.


When it comes to the federal government, however, results have nothing to do with budgeting. Why? Because the federal government doesn’t produce wealth. Instead, it taxes residents.


The federal government’s funding comes from the money earned through the ingenuity, hard work, and entrepreneurial spirit of common people. But as we see almost regularly on the news, people tend to spend money unwisely when they haven’t earned it. The same happens inside institutions where employees and leadership all rely on the bottomless pit that is taxpayer ‘revenue.’


When it comes to the enforcement of laws regarding consumer goods — especially those seen as immoral or damaging to the individual’s health — these agencies tend to ignore reality.


Individuals are free to act on their desires and needs, basing their decisions on information they have at hand, but also on past experiences. As free agents, humans have the natural right to pursue their own lifestyles, which includes the use of illicit substances. The very core of principles used to guide the creation of the U.S. constitution clearly shows this. And for most of the country’s young history, drug use was not controlled by governments or law enforcement. Some of the founding fathers even grew their own hemp — a variety of the cannabis plant.


At some point, even the consumption of alcohol in America was outlawed. The result? The creation of some of the most legendary, law-breaking cartels the world has ever seen. But what else happened due to alcohol prohibition? More alcohol abuse (which the federal government attempted to battle by imposing an ill-fated policy of poisoning huge supplies of alcohol).


Like alcohol, drug abuse has turned into a problem because consumers have to rely on the black market for their products. Without access to clear information on these substances, consumers suffer tremendously. And without free competition, which would flourish without governments constantly hampering these efforts, consumers would be free to only pursue their habits by relying on the safest, most trusted sources.


If the goal is to put an end to the illicit drug trade, the federal government is embracing the very opposite of what they ought to, allowing their attempts to restrict drugs to empower black market entities taking advantage of anti-drug laws. Increasing the budget of law enforcement agencies and adding to the ever-growing burden on the U.S. taxpayer is not going to do anything to fix it.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,


So let"s imagine a scenario in which tens of trillions of at-risk wealth suddenly seek an alternative--any alternative to staying in an asset class that"s circling the drain.


As my colleague Davefairtex observed recently, the paint isn"t quite dry on bitcoin and the expanding host of other cryptocurrencies. Initial enthusiasm for the latest cryptocurrency that"s going to eat bitcoin"s lunch generates outsized returns for early investors, but as glitches in the vision arise, the bubble of initial euphoria pops.


Differing visions of bitcoin"s future have divided its community of participants and miners, and hard forks have split other cryptocurrencies into competing camps.


Meanwhile, the spectre of outright bans on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies by nations such as China adds uncertainty to the entire sector. Many observers expect that China"s increasingly pervasive attempts to staunch the flow of capital out of China via capital controls will lead inevitably to strict limits on bitcoin or even a total ban on bitcoin transactions and mining in China.


Since the majority of mining and transactions occur in China, severe limits or a ban would have an outsized impact on the bitcoin community. Many observers foresee the potential for a massive decline in the price of bitcoin should such a ban be imposed.


As if all these issues didn"t generate enough uncertainty and skepticism, it seems as if every time the general public starts getting interested in cryptocurrencies, another exchange is hacked or another entry in the cryptocurrency sweepstakes blows up, sending the sector back into the "untrustworthy" abyss.


But this minefield shouldn"t blind us to the possibility of a path to $10,000 bitcoin. Skepticism is always prudent in any financial matter, especially a speculative one, so put on your skeptical thinkijng cap and follow along.


The problem is everything is now speculative. Do you really think the $100 trillion private-sector bond market (i.e. the bet that debtors will pay back what they borrowed with interest) is "safe," as in guaranteed, bullet-proof, no serious loss of capital is possible, etc.? How about the $60 trillion sovereign (government) bond market?


The problem with sovereign bonds is governments with central banks can create "money" out of thin air to pay interest and redeem maturing bonds, but this devalues the currency. So getting back 100% of your nominal investment doesn"t mean you"re whole; if the currency the bond is denominated in fell 50%, bondholders suffer a 50% loss in the purchasing power of their initial capital. Ouch. How is that not speculative?


How about the $70 trillion in global stocks? Yes, we all "know" that stocks will never go down ever again because central banks can keep inflating new credit bubbles indefinitely--but let"s not kid ourselves: history tells us that stocks remain a speculative gamble.


How about the $62 trillion in unsecuritized debt instruments? How much of this debt is collateralized by fast-dying malls, bubble-priced real estate, or Unicorn-type valuations in other assets?


Take a gander at this chart of financial assets, roughly $300 trillion, and note that this doesn"t include real estate, housing, etc. Global real estate is estimated at $217 trillion, roughly two-thirds of financial wealth.


Together, these assets add up to over $500 trillion.



Once again, the larger context here is: all these assets are speculative. Yes, even real estate. Consider this, if you missed it: When Assets (Such as Real Estate) Become Liabilities.


Then there"s the currency market. Care to argue that currencies are non-speculative investments? Is that why Chinese wealth is gushing out of the yuan, because it"s so guaranteed to never lose purchasing power? Is that why the euro fell from 1.40 to 1.05, because it"s a guaranteed safe investment? Venezuelans learned the hard way that fiat currencies when mismanaged by the issuing nation/central bank can destroy wealth on an unimaginable scale.


So now let"s turn to bitcoin, with a market cap of about $14 billion, down from a recent high of $18 billion. Now compare that to $500 trillion. If we take 1 measly little trillion, bitcoin"s entire market cap is 1/70th of that.


So let"s imagine a scenario in which tens of trillions of at-risk wealth suddenly seek an alternative--any alternative to staying in an asset class that"s circling the drain. We"re accustomed to "rotation," the nice little game where bonds can be sold and the capital invested in real estate or stocks, or vice versa.


We"re less accustomed to all the conventional asset classes toppling like dominoes. Where do the fleeing trillions go when stocks, bonds and real estate are all going down in a chaotic sell-off? Gold and silver are time-honored safe havens, but it"s not too difficult to foresee the potential for limits or bans on gold, or supply constraints. Some percentage of investors will consider alternatives.


In such an environment of a crowd rushing for increasingly narrowing exits, what thin slice of institutional and individual investors will take a chance that bitcoin might hold or even increase its value as a major currency melts down, or some other global financial crisis unfolds?


Shall we guess 1/10th of 1% of the panicky fleeing wealth will take the chance that bitcoin will be a safer haven than the conventional assets that are cratering?


So 1% of the $300 trillion in financial assets (setting aside the $200 trillion in real estate for the moment) is $3 trillion, and a tenth of that is $300 billion.


So what happens to bitcoin"s price if $300 billion rushes through the wormhole? On the face of it, market cap would go up 20-fold from current levels. Since the number of bitcoin is limited to around 18 or 19 million (subtracting those bitcoin lost forever to hard drive crashes, etc., and those yet to be mined), price would also have to rise 20-fold.


OK, so 1/10th of 1% of global financial wealth flowing into bitcoin strains credulity. Let"s make it 1/20th of 1%, or $150 billion. That still pushes bitcoin"s market cap and price up 10-fold.


That"s the pathway to $10,000 bitcoin. Unlikely, you say? Perhaps. But if you"re of the mind that $500 trillion in current assets might be revalued considerably lower in a global crisis, then a tiny sliver of that fast-evaporating wealth finding a home in bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) doesn"t seem all that farfetched.


You want farfetched, how about $3 trillion in panicky fleeing capital flooding into bitcoin? Yes, a whole, gigantic, enormous 1% of speculative financial "wealth" and "money" seeking a home in cryptocurrencies.


(It"s worth doing the same exercise with gold, only substitute $6.4 trillion in market cap (i.e. all the non-central owned bank gold) for bitcoin"s $14 billion market cap.)


Cryptocurrencies are intrinsically volatile and speculative. Anyone pondering them must keep this firmly in mind at all times. There is no "guaranteed" safety or guaranteed anything. Everything that appears solid can melt into thin air (to borrow Marx"s phrase) without advance notice.


All of the World’s Money and Markets in One Visualization


How Much Gold Do Central Banks Actually Have?


Disclosure: the author has a tiny speculative position in bitcoin. This is not a recommendation to anyone to speculate in any financial instrument, including cryptocurrecies. Please read the site"s full disclosure here: HUGE GIANT BIG FAT DISCLAIMER.