New Geography

Author: Susanne Trimbath

  • $12.8 Trillion Committed to Bailout

    Shortly after I told you that Bloomberg.com is reporting a running total of the money the U.S. government has pledged and spent for bailouts and economic stimulus, reporters Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry updated the totals: So far, $12.8 trillion has been pledged – an additional $1.2 trillion over the earlier report. The total disbursed through March 31, 2009 stands at $4.2 trillion. The Federal Reserve is still committed to providing the largest share at $7.8 trillion, followed by the U.S. Treasury $2.7 trillion and FDIC $2.0 trillion.

    The national debt currently stands at $11.3 trillion — versus an authorized limit of $12.1 trillion. Spending, lending and bailouts by the Federal Reserve are not counted toward the limit.

    This week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is in China. Mainland China holds $767.9 billion of Treasury securities at the end of March 2009 or about 7 percent of the total national debt. Japan, the second largest major foreign holder, has $686.7 billion.

    Notes: Data from Department of the Treasury. Caribbean Banking Centers (Carib Bnkng Ctrs) include Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, and British Virgin Islands. Oil exporters include Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria.

    The U.S. bailout commitment of $11.6 trillion equals 89 percent of U.S. 2008 gross domestic product (GDP).

  • Foreign Holders of US Treasury Securities, March 2009

  • Betting against the USA — told ya’ so!

    More than once in this space, I’ve said that derivative financial products set up a perverse incentive where investors have more to gain from the failure of companies and homeowners than their success. If you haven’t seen it yet, take a look at the longer version of my description of the causes and consequences of the current crisis to understand how failed financial innovations, like credit default swaps, contributed to the meltdown of 2008. I wrote that article back in November.

    Once again, only Bloomberg.com is out front on this story. More hedge funds are catching onto the casino-like qualities of betting against America’s economic success. Reporters Salas, Harrington and Paulden could have quoted my NewGeography writings directly: “companies [have] more credit-default swaps outstanding than the bonds the contracts protected…” and, referring to Clear Channel Communications, “some of its creditors stand to profit from its failure.”

    Told ya’ so!

  • Who’s Watching AIG?

    The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing Wednesday – “AIG: Where is the Taxpayer Money Going?” Questions are being raised about whether the bailout better serves the interests of AIG’s customers and trading partners or the interests of U.S. taxpayers.

    The highlight of the Committee’s questioning of Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy came when Chairman Town (D-NY) asked the blunt question: “Why would you give retention bonuses to AIG employees who failed? Plus, the economy is so messed up, where would they go?” On the minds of many committee members were the facts that AIG got $70 billion in TARP money, $50 billion through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Maiden Lane LLC and another $60 billion directly from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRB-NY’s AIG Credit Facility). When compared to the fact that AIG is currently worth just $5 billion, the repeated question became: “How will taxpayers be repaid?” Mr. Liddy pointed to the value of some subsidiaries and other assets that can be sold off, but he had to admit that the timing and possibility of AIG repaying taxpayers really “depends on the economy and the capital markets.”

    The Trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust testified in the second panel. The Trustees were named by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, under then-President Timothy Geithner, in September 2008. The panel included one non-Trustee – Professor J.W. Verret of George Mason University School of Law. Professor Verret expressed concern over the form of the AIG trust agreement: “I am concerned by the AIG trust because of the precedent it sets. Secretary Geithner has announced his intention to create another trust to manage the Treasury’s investment in Citigroup as well as other TARP participants. If the AIG trust, crafted during the Secretary’s tenure as President of the New York Fed, is used as a model for these new entities, the risk to taxpayers will be multiplied many times over. “ Professor Verret raised three specific problems with the agreement: 1) the agreement specifically expects the Trustees to act in the best interest of the U.S. Treasury, not the U.S. taxpayers; 2) the Trustees cannot be held liable for their actions; and 3) the Trustees can invest on information they gain in the course of their duties.

    At the end of the hearing, the final question went to Representative Norton (D-D.C.). Too many of the AIG Trustees also serve or have served as directors and officers to other TARP recipients. Ms. Norton noted that all of the witnesses are connected to Wall Street and all know each other. Evidently, one of the Trustees, Jill Considine, is involved with a Bermuda company that provides services to hedge funds. Ms. Considine was uncomfortable naming the hedge funds that benefit from her advice because the Bermuda company is private – it is also foreign. Considine took Norton aside when hearing ended, engaging her in an animated conversation – off the record, of course.

    It seems evident that some of the Trustees didn’t recognize the risks AIG was taking when they were in a position to have close contact with not only AIG but their counterparties – those final recipients of the bailout money. If the Trustees missed the AIG risk then, when they were regulators in the self-regulatory industry and serving on Boards at the Federal Reserve Banks, then what can we expect from them now?

  • Cap and Trade: Who Wins, Who Loses

    President Obama recently announced his plan for environmental protection and Congress took up the debate. Called “Cap and Trade” Obama explained it simply in several public appearances. The government puts a limit on the total amount of carbon emissions that are acceptable in the United States. Carbon emissions come, basically, from burning carbon-based fuels – natural gas, petroleum and coal – in the production and use of energy. Users and producers of energy emit carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere.

    As Richard Ebeling writes at the Mises Institute, under cap and trade “the government will formally nationalize the atmosphere above the United States.” The program bypasses fundamental questions like what is pollution, how much does it take to cause harm, who is harmed by it and linking the causation between pollution and harm. Fear of lawsuits, torts and injunctions (which could provide the answers) keeps the Administration from addressing these questions head-on. Reliance on the same, tired old source for solutions – Wall Street – ensures that those being harmed aren’t necessarily the ones who will benefit.

    Under Cap and Trade, each carbon-emitting entity – cars, power plants, factories, etc. – is allotted some share of that total limit, or Cap, permitted for carbon spewed into the air in the United States. For example, a power plant producing electricity for 50,000 homes and businesses might be allowed to emit 2 tons of carbon per year. That’s their “cap,” the maximum amount of carbon they are allowed to put in the air.

    Now for the “trade”: if that plant finds a cleaner way to produce the electricity needed for 50,000 homes and businesses, say only 1 tons of carbon per year, they can sell the right to emit 1 ton of carbon to a power plant that puts 3 tons of carbon into the air while generating electricity for 50,000 homes and businesses. The plant that buys the right to emit an extra 1 ton of carbon per year is not required to limit their emissions to 2 tons – they bought the right for the extra ton.

    It all sounds very lovely as long as the caps will control the total amount of carbon added to the air from the United States. The money gained by selling the rights for “unused” emissions will provide financial incentives to the makers and users of cars, power plants and factories to pay for the technology to be cleaner. Since the money spent to pay for the more efficient technology can be recovered in the Cap and Trade marketplace, the cost of the cleaner energy shouldn’t require higher costs to consumers of the now cleaner air.

    This is great if you live near a power plant that manages to reduce the carbon emissions into the air you breathe below the maximum cap level. Here’s the problem: what if you live next to the power plant that paid for the right to put an extra ton of carbon into the air? Two things happen. First, you will be paying for the extra carbon because the power company will have to charge more to pay the cleaner power company for the right to produce the extra ton of carbon. That leads to the second problem: the extra ton of carbon is being emitted into the air around your home. That means that you could end up paying more for your electricity, while also breathing more polluted air.

    Cap and Trade is not a solution, it is another money-making scheme cooked up by the “dangerous dreamers” of Wall Street. In the EU they at least have the good grace to call it a “Trading Scheme.” A global carbon trading market already exists. “Pollution rights” have been traded since the 1990s when the Environmental Protection Agency held the first auction of air emission allowances, or pollution rights, at the Chicago Board of Trade. Starting with sulfur dioxide allowances, other pollutants were added in the next ten years to eventually create a complete trading market on the Chicago Climate Exchange. “The right to use water or air is more valuable than food, and we can use the price system to allocate that right,” said Richard Sandor at the 2005 Milken Institute Global Conference (yes, that Milken). The Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange are now prepared to expand the environmental markets for industrial pollution, also known as the carbon markets, into “futures and options on more than 40 U.S. and international indexes [for pollution rights].”

    But, really, do we want the same bunch of guys that gave us junk bonds, mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps allocating air and water? Globally? Into the future?

    Like sending subprime mortgages throughout the global economy, this scheme will allow pollution rights to be bought and sold by anyone. So, it isn’t just the factory next door to the power generator in Detroit that will be emitting the extra tons of carbon – factories in other countries will be able to sell their carbon emitting rights to power companies in Detroit. It’s a great money-making scheme for a solar powered producer in Costa Rica – but a very bad deal for those breathing the air and paying for power in Detroit.

    The Cap and Trade scheme is being supported by President Obama’s main economic advisor, Larry Summers – who once said we should export pollution to Africa because their per capita figures are too low. “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

    Cap and Trade gets the polluters mixed up with the victims of pollution. Shouldn’t the money generated from the sale of pollution rights accumulate to the persons harmed by the pollution? The idea that you can structure economic incentives to produce socially beneficial results really ends up being about creating paper profits for the money-traders at the expense of the people living with the pollution. This does not seem like a fair trade to me.

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  • Buffett’s Partner Agrees with Us

    Billionaire investor, Warren Buffett, is hosting the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting “Capitalist Woodstock” in Omaha this weekend. Every news truck this side of Kansas City has been moved into town to cover the event.

    While using words like “evil”, “folly” and “demented” to describe the activities that generated the global financial meltdown, Buffett’s partner, Charlie Munger, told CNBC in an interview that credit default swaps (CDS) should be outlawed completely. I have said clearly that Buffett’s strategy on CDS has gotten him in too deep. His strategy requires “new money” coming into the system regularly at a time when investors are pulling back.

    Munger also says that “the people who make a lot of money out of the system as it is have a lot of political power and they don’t want it changed.” We think he must be speaking about Buffett here, too. Berkshire Hathaway is a financial company that benefits from the bailout of financial companies. Buffett must also be aware that the government will continue to make bailout payments, that will be passed along to CDS holders, just like the approximately $50 billion Uncle Sam passed out through AIG during the fall of 2008.

    According to a report from Reuters, Berkshire Hathaway will not report their 1st quarter financial results on Friday and no new date or reason for the delay has been given. According to Bloomberg, the results will be delayed until six days after the meeting. There is some speculation at CNBC that Buffett may want to avoid some “terrifically worried” investors at the meetings this weekend. The stock price closed down $1,995 per share on Friday, May 1.

  • Geithner’s Collusive Capitalism

    Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson (she reported on the lack of mortgages behind mortgage-backed securities) did a long piece on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner in the New York Times. They paint a stark picture of Secretary Geithner’s brand of “Collusive Capitalism”: lunch at the Four Seasons restaurant with execs from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley; private dinners at home with the head of JPMorgan Chase.

    Most importantly, Becker and Morgenson raise the question of why – with all that frequent contact – Geithner never sounded the alarm about these banks? Indeed, as I’ve pointed out before, Geithner took no steps to prevent $2 trillion in US Treasury bond trades go unsettled for 7 months – until it was over, when he called a meeting of the same bankers that caused the problem to have them do a study, take a survey, make some suggestions, etc. The one action that needed to be taken – to enforce finality of settlement – was never on the table.

    When the banks behaved recklessly in lending, trading, issuing derivatives and generally fueling the Bonfire of their Vanities, according to Becker and Morgenson, Geithner’s idea was to have the federal government “guarantee all the debt in the banking system.” As Martin Weiss asks in his ads for Money and Markets, “Has U.S. Treasury Chief Geithner LOST HIS MIND?”

  • How Soon We Forget: Wall Street Wages

    It also wasn’t that long ago that Congress held hearings on the bonuses paid to AIG employees after the bailout. Now, according to New York Times reporter Louise Story Wall Street compensation is rising back to where it was in 2007 – the last year that these firms made oodles of money with investment strategies that turned toxic the next year.

    And, yeah, we get it – there is a theoretic connection between compensation and performance. But we also know that there’s a difference between theory and practice. Too many of the same employees who either perpetrated the events leading to the meltdown or stood idly by while it happened are still in place.

    When AIG finally revealed what they did with the bailout money, we found out that a big chunk of it went overseas. Now, New York Post reporter John Aidan Byrne tells us that the bailout recipients are bailing out – on U.S. workers! Story found that Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America and Citigroup, all recipients of billions of bailout dollars, are shifting more jobs overseas. The explanation, that nothing in TARP prohibits them from moving jobs out of the US, is so lame I’m surprised Story even bothered to mention it.

    The initial indicators of the current financial meltdown were visible in mid-2007. The deeper, underlying causes were recognized, talked about in Washington and then ignored as far back as 2004. The collective memory is short. Nobody wants to hear the bad news, especially when it’s this bad and it goes on for this long. The morning you wake up and wish the financial meltdown would just go away is your most dangerous moment – wishing won’t make it so.

  • TARP Criminal Charges Possible

    Of the three monitors established by the legislation that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), only one has the authority to prosecute criminals. That is the Office of the Special Inspector General (SIGTARP) whose motto is “Advancing Economic Stability through Transparency, Coordinated Oversight and Robust Enforcement.” The Special Inspector General in charge, Neil Barofsky, told Congress before the recess that he was by-passing the Rogue Treasury to get answers directly from TARP recipients about what they are doing with the bailout money. Now, SIGTARP has set up a hotline (877-SIG2009) for citizens to report fraud or “evidence of violations of criminal and civil laws in connection with TARP.” To date, they have received 200 tips and launched 20 criminal investigations.

    What started out as a bailout costing $750 billion quickly turned into $3 trillion – an amount about equal to the U.S. government’s 2008 budget. This week, SIGTARP released a 250-page report in an attempt to place “the scope and scale [of TARP] into proper context” and to make the program understandable to “the American people.” I can’t recommend that you read a report of that length, or even that you download it (more than 10 megabytes) unless you have broadband internet access. (In fact, I don’t understand what makes them think that the American people are going to understand anything that takes 250 pages to explain… Isn’t over-complicating one of the problems they want to solve?) You can get all the high points in Barofsky’s statement to the Joint Economic Committee, which is only 7 pages and a few hundred kilobytes. If you have more time than patience, you can watch the testimony on C-SPAN.

    I applaud the hard work of the SIGTARP to provide oversight to Treasury even though they are “currently working out of the main Treasury compound.” Let’s hope they can break free of the hazards associated with the self-regulation that got us into this financial mess in the first place.

  • HOPE for Only One Homeowner with a $300 billion Price Tag

    The Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was passed last August. It created the HOPE for Homeowners Program, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would help 400,000 homeowners to refinance their loans and stay in their homes. Here’s a stunning revelation: According to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), in the first six months since the law was passed, exactly one (1) homeowner refinanced under the program!

    You can listen to the story on NPR, “Investors Support Overhauling Homeowner Program“. One such investor, PIMCO, supports programs that would reduce the principal balance on mortgages by a small amount in order to keep the cash flow coming from mortgage payments. Given what we know about investment strategies to push companies into bankruptcy in order to benefit from credit default swap payouts, I was initially leery of such statements coming from bond investors. Then I remembered the problem with the paperwork on the mortgages – if bondholders can’t prove ownership of the lien the homeowner keeps the house with no further payments. That’s when it started to make sense.

    Of course, if they can get the homeowners to come in for a re-fi they can correct the paperwork mistakes. It could be worth it to investors without default protection to accept principal reductions – if the homeowner goes into bankruptcy they may not be able to prove they own the mortgage without the new paperwork. With the re-fi, they get all new documentation.

    These programs were designed for homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments but whose homes are “underwater”, that is, the principal balance on the mortgage is more than the market value of the house. Some can keep up their payments with the hope that the market price of the home adjusts in the distant future; others might benefit by the modest reductions in principal favored by some bond investors. But in a situation described by a Stockton (CA) homeowner the principal reduction is unlikely to be enough – the home is worth $220,000 and the mortgage balance is $420,000. These homeowners’ best financial strategy is to take the hit to their credit report and default on the mortgage. Investors like PIMCO might, if their paperwork is good, get half their investment back by taking possession of the property; they’ll get it all back if they bought the credit default swap; and they get nothing if the paperwork is screwed up.

    How many mortgages are underwater? Bank of America’s annual report says that 23 percent of their residential mortgage portfolio has current loan-to-market value ratios greater than 90 percent. When they include home equity loans in the calculation, totaling lending on a residential property, the share with less than 10 percent equity rises to 37 percent. At the end of 2008, Bank of America held $248 billion in residential mortgages and $152 billion in home equity loans, after taking write-offs of about $4.4 billion last year. On the other hand, Wells Fargo did not specifically report the share of their portfolio with loan-to-market value ratios greater than 90 percent. It’s hard to tell just how many mortgages are how far underwater at an aggregate level. I would imagine that these numbers are being checked in the Treasury’s stress testing of individual banks.

    In any event, Congress is not giving up (although we almost wish they would before this gets any worse). The House Committee on Financial Services combined with the House Judiciary Committee has introduced a new bill to improve the old bill’s version of Hope for Homeowners. Trying to take it a step further, the House Financial Services Committee is holding hearings on a Mortgage Reform Bill next week. The plan is to set lending standards for all mortgage originators. Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) is of the view that the “great economic hole” we are in was started by“ policymakers’ distrust of regulation in general, their enduring belief that markets and financial institutions could effectively police themselves.”

    With this we do agree: self-regulation in financial services is a root cause of our current economic disaster. Until it is completely removed – not just from mortgage lending but from all financial products and services – nothing Congress does will prevent another crisis.