Thriving bear sees many more US bank failures

Thriving bear sees many more US bank failures
Reuters in New York
Apr 04, 2009

John Jacquemin, a hedge fund manager of Mooring Financial Corp, who predicted the credit crisis and tripled his investors’ money over the past two years, warned that hundreds of United States banks were doomed to fail and that an economic recovery was far away.

Mooring Financial has posted 10 consecutive years of gains snapping up loans at distressed prices, while his two-year-old Intrepid Opportunities Fund generated 222 per cent returns betting against corporate debt and financial stocks.

Beyond a housing glut and slower consumer spending, Mr Jacquemin said he remained bearish because banks and regulators had not confronted the mountains of bad loans still on banks’ books.

While banks needed to mark down bonds to prevailing market prices, “with whole loans, they don’t have to and they haven’t”, he said.

“If they did, there would be literally hundreds and hundreds of insolvent banks,” he said.

Eighteen years ago, Mr Jacquemin was a commercial lender who snapped up loans sold by Resolution Trust and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the wake of the savings and loans crisis.

Mr Jacquemin said government agencies were aggressive in closing failed banks, selling branches and deposits to the highest bidders. Today, he contends, officials have been more tentative, allowing weak banks to hobble along.

“If the banks sold these loans for what they could get, they would be insolvent,” Mr Jacquemin said. “The difference between now and the 1990s is the government today is not closing banks down.”

This approach would only prolong the crisis.

“They’re not being aggressive because it would scare the hell out of us,” Mr Jacquemin said. “But we can’t get rid of the problem the way they’re approaching it now … [The government] ought to be closing the weak banks and helping recapitalise the stronger ones.”

Little-known Mooring Financial has generated returns on par with renowned credit market bear John Paulson and his hedge fund firm Paulson.

Mr Jacquemin’s Mooring Capital Fund has never had a losing year and returned 12 per cent a year, on average, for 10 years buying distressed loans and debt.

The excesses of the credit bubble – reckless leverage and frothy property markets – prompted him to launch Intrepid Opportunities in February 2007.

The fund shorted indices that tracked bond and mortgage markets, as well as bet against banks, credit card lenders and other financial companies.

The new fund soared 56 per cent last year, when equities fell 40 per cent and the average hedge fund dropped 18 per cent.

Mr Jacquemin said the firm, which manages US$400 million, was seeking new investors.

While bank shares have rallied in recent weeks, Mr Jacquemin has maintained his negative views on corporate bonds and finance stocks.

He predicts rising commercial property defaults and worries that consumer spending will never rebound to pre-crisis levels.

Mr Jacquemin said housing prices would not improve until the glut of empty units was absorbed – a process that will take at least 18 months and as long as 2-1/2 years.

GIC cuts loss in one fell swop

See also
http://chenreiki.com/blog/archives/376
http://chenreiki.com/blog/archives/350
http://chenreiki.com/blog/archives/327

Mon, Mar 02, 2009
The Business Times

GIC cuts loss in one fell swop

By Conrad Tan

THE Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) will convert all its preferred shares in Citigroup into common stock to cut its losses. The swop will give it an 11.1 per cent stake in the troubled US bank, which yesterday announced a sweeping plan to boost its common equity base. The conversion will pare GIC’s paper loss on its original US$6.88 billion investment in Citi from 80 per cent or US$5.5 billion to 24 per cent, or US$1.67 billion, based on Thursday’s closing price of US$2.46 for Citi shares.

Separately, Citi said yesterday that it plans to swop up to US$52.5 billion of its preferred stock, including US$25 billion of the US$45 billion held by the US government, for ordinary shares.

Citi also recorded a massive US$10 billion charge for impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets in the fourth quarter, resulting in an additional net loss of US$9 billion for the final three months of last year.

For GIC, the decision to convert its shares appears to have been the lesser of two unpalatable choices. Citi yesterday suspended dividend payments on its preferred shares as well as common stock, which means that GIC would lose the 7 per cent annual dividend that it has been receiving if it chose not to convert its holdings.

The conversion will make GIC the second-biggest shareholder in Citi with a stake of about 11 per cent, compared to about 4 per cent at the time of its original investment. The US government will be Citi’s largest shareholder, owning 36-38 per cent of Citi’s common equity. The final stakes will depend on how many investors in the publicly held tranche of Citi’s preferred stock decide to participate in the share conversion.

One thing is certain: Existing ordinary shareholders will suffer massive dilution of more than 70 per cent. Citi shares plunged 37 per cent to US$1.55 at the start of US trading yesterday after the bank’s announcement. At that price, GIC’s unrealised loss on its Citi investment would be US$3.6 billion. The profitability of US banks ‘is likely to be impaired in the next two years’, said Ng Kok Song, GIC’s group chief investment officer in a statement.

‘GIC’s view is that with this latest move, Citigroup’s capacity to weather the severe economic downturn will be strengthened.’

Before yesterday’s announcement, the market value of the preferred shares held by GIC had already slumped 80 per cent to just US$1.376 billion since its initial investment in Citi, as mounting losses made it less likely that the bank would be able to keep up its dividend payments.

The US government, GIC and other investors that bought Citi preferred stock alongside GIC in January last year will receive common stock at a price of US$3.25 a share. Those investors, including Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, have agreed to the exchange, said Citi.

At the conversion price of US$3.25, GIC will get some 2.12 billion common shares in exchange for its US$6.88 billion in preferred stock. Based on Thursday’s closing price of US$2.46 a share, GIC’s stake after conversion is worth US$5.21 billion.

That puts GIC’s unrealised loss on its original US$6.88 billion investment in Citi at US$1.67 billion after the conversion, compared to US$5.5 billion before.

Under the original terms of GIC’s investment in Citi, it would have had to pay a much higher conversion price of US$26.35 for each common share, GIC said. That would have translated into a stake of just 261.1 million shares, worth a mere US$642 million at Thursday’s closing price for Citi shares.

But the conversion also means that GIC will now bear greater risk than before, as an ordinary shareholder. It also gives up for good the 7 per cent annual dividend that it previously earned on its preferred shares.

Citi chief executive Vikram Pandit said that the conversion plan had just ‘one goal’ – to increase the bank’s tangible common equity or TCE. Converting its preferred shares into ordinary equity will boost its TCE ratio – the focus of stress tests by US regulators starting this week as a key measure of the bank’s ability to withstand further losses if the recession is worse than expected.

Ordinary shareholders are the first to suffer any losses, so common equity is seen as the highest quality of capital that a bank holds, and the size of a bank’s common equity base relative to its assets is considered the purest measure of its buffer against losses.

The hope is that by raising its TCE ratio, Citi will be able to weather the worst recession that the US has seen in decades. The plan is expected to increase its TCE as a proportion of its risk-weighted assets from less than 3 per cent now to 7.9 per cent.

Crucially, it does so without the need to inject more money from the public purse. That makes it unnecessary for the US government to seek the approval of lawmakers for more funds amid growing public fury over the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out large banks.

But the US government could still inject more capital into Citi – in the form of mandatory convertible preferred shares – if the stress tests show that the bank’s capital cushion still needs bolstering. That would mean further dilution for ordinary shareholders, including GIC, when the shares are eventually converted to common stock.

‘As a shareholder, GIC supports the initiative by Citigroup and the US government to strengthen the quality of the bank’s capital base in view of the challenging economic environment,’ GIC said in a statement.

25 Year-Old Beauty Seeks Rich Banker

This was posted on Craigslist last year:

‘What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board ? Any wives ? Could you send me some tips ? I dated a business man who made an average of around 200 – 250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker, and lives in Tribeca. She’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right ? How do I get to her level ?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out ? Give me specifics – bars, restaurants, gyms

- What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings

- Is there an age range I should be targeting ?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the Upper East Side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘Plain Jane’ boring types, who have nothing to offer incredibly wealthy guys. Then I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the East Village. What’s the story there ?

- Lawyers, investment bankers, doctors. How much do those guys really make ? And where do the hedge fund guys hang out ?

- How do you rich guys decide on marriage vs. just a girlfriend ? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.

Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial – at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice hearth and home’.

An Investment Banker’s Response:

Dear Pers-431649184:

‘I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.

Firstly, I’m not wasting your time. I qualify as a guy who fits your bill – that is, I make more than $500K per year. That said, here’s how I see it:

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is a plain and simple crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity – in fact, it is very likely that my income will increase, but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms, you are a depreciating asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, however, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain – you’re 25 now and will likely remain pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 – stick a fork in you!

So, in Wall Street terms, we’d call you a trading position – not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to ‘buy you’ (which is what you’re asking) – so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following: if my money were to go away, so would you – so when your beauty fades I need an out too. It’s as simple as that. So the deal that makes sense for me is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as ‘articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful’ as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that, if you are as gorgeous as you say you are, your $500K man hasn’t found you – if only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money – and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic ‘pump and dump’. I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, please let me know’.

Atheists and the Stock Market – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Taleb’s exposition of the Ludic fallacy:

“We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotional laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage, the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Academie Francaise, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated.

Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters — we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and superficial — and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information. The dark side of the moon is harder to see; beaming light on it costs energy. In the same way, beaming light on the unseen is costly in both computational and mental effort.”

John Thain

Thain behaviour
FT
Published: January 23 2009 22:03 | Last updated: January 23 2009 22:03

What is it that bankers don’t get? Unable to own up to a collective failure, some still display a sense of entitlement that bears no relation to their current status as wards of the state supported by the taxpayer. Step forward John Thain.

Formerly of Goldman Sachs, he was feted just months ago for securing the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, just as Lehman Brothers crumbled into dust. BofA even paid a 70 per cent premium. Some deal. Some salvation.

It now emerges that Mr Thain brought forward about $4bn in discretionary bonuses, paying them out in the narrow window after the sale of Merrill was agreed but days before the deal was actually closed.

This wheeze went down just as Merrill headed into record $21.5bn operating losses in the fourth quarter and BofA started seeking additional taxpayers’ funds from the troubled asset relief programme to digest its acquisition.

These bonuses, moreover, came in a year when Merrill’s total operating loss was $41.2bn. Bonuses equivalent to 10 per cent of the profits would be excessive, but 10 per cent of the losses? Furthermore, reports that Mr Thain spent $1.22m doing up his office, including $1,400 on a parchment rubbish bin, after his arrival at Merrill last year will serve to feed popular perceptions that the greed and insensitivity of investment bankers knows few limits.

Whether or not the bonuses were legal – and it seems they were – outside the parallel universe of investment bankers they are seen as looting. Bankers played a very big part in setting fire to the world economy – and reaped large rewards for their recklessness. They are being supported with public money because the economy cannot work without banks, not because bankers should be a protected species.

There may be no tumbrils rolling down Wall Street or through the City of London but a backlash is building. It would be a pity if this translates into regulation more stifling than that required to restrain more foolish risk-taking. But if bankers behave like this, it certainly will.

Citibank

When Travelers chief executive Sandy Weill acquired Citibank for US$70bn in April 1998 he effectively forced a rewrite of the rules of financial regulation. The US system was set up in the 1930s to prevent a repeat of the crash that led to the Great Depression.

The Glass-Steagall Act kept investment banks on Wall Street separate from commercial and retail lenders on main street, so traders couldn’t bet bank deposits. It was effectively repealed during the dying days of the Clinton Presidency in November 1999.

The Citibank takeover, which brought together legendary bond trading house Salomon, acquired by Travelers in 1997, with one of America’s largest main street lenders, forced this issue out into the open.

It heralded a wave of similar deals, combining both sides of the banking business. Most notably in September 2000 Chase Manhattan bought JP Morgan for US$33bn shortly after it had snapped up UK investment bank Robert Fleming.

Soon afterwards inventive investment bankers made the most of the low interest rates put in place after the terrorist atrocities of September 11 2001 to create debt instruments that led ultimately to the current debacle.
Continue reading

Ted Williams

Ted Williams was the most robust batter in baseball history. Williams discarded the strike zone and ignored umpire calls, instead creating his own personal batting zone. This was an area divided into 77 sub-sectors each the size of a baseball.

Through many trials, Williams determined that the probability distribution of him getting a hit was best in only nine of those zones. Using tremendous discipline in his set-up, he would only swing the bat if a pitch was in one of those nine zones. The results are recorded in baseball’s Hall of Fame.

If there was ever a time in market history when we all need to be Ted Williams, it’s now.

Black Swan Revisited

The Black Swan theory (in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s version) refers to a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations. The term black swan comes from the commonplace Western cultural assumption that all swans are white. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist. The 17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass.

In risk management, we need to deal with black swans that have consequences. Further, a search in the literature in the philosophy and history of probability shows the depressing fact that large impact events are absent from discussions. Probabilities by themselves do not matter. They can be very small, but their results are not. What matters in life is the equation probability x consequence. This point may appear to be simple, but its consequences are not.

If small probability events carry large impacts, and these small probability events are more difficult to compute from past data itself, then our empirical knowledge about the potential contribution – or role – of rare events (probability x consequence) is inversely proportional to their impact.

Warren Buffett Interview

What can I possibly do with billions and billions of dollars? I don’t see the fuss in having 6 houses with greenskeepers; I don’t see the fuss in having 20 cars in the garage. If you think about it you are living better than John D. Rockefeller. If you want to watch the Super Bowl you just turn on the TV and watch it. If he wanted to see the World Series it would take him a long time to get there, and he would not have air conditioning and that type of thing. The problem is not getting rich, but finding a game you enjoy and living a normal life. The most important thing is finding the right spouse. If you make the wrong decision on that you will regret it, there is a lot of pain involved, but if you have the right spouse it is just wonderful. What qualities do you look for in a spouse? Humour, looks, character, brains, or just someone with low expectations. The most important decision that you will make is that. If you make that one decision right I will guarantee you a good result in life.

Question: What is happiness? Are you happy?

I am so blessed. I get to do what I like to do with people that I love. That is happiness. I am happy day after day after day. How could I be any happier? Someone once said success is getting what you want and happiness is wanting what you get. And that’s what I see in people as I look around. The only thing I have to do in life that I don’t like doing is fire people occasionally – very seldom. I would pay a lot of money if I didn’t have to do that. But wverything else I like. I’m doing what I like doing. I could be playing shuffleboard, I could be in Vegas, but I’m doing what I like doing. There is a woman here in Omaha who is a Polish Jew. She was in Auschwitz, her family was in Auschwitz. One would be in one line, another in another line. One of them didn’t come out. She said this to me “Warren, I am very slow to make friends, because the bottom line when I look at somebody is would they hide me?” Now I know people my age that have dozens and dozens of people who would hide them, Tom Murphy for example from Berkshire. I can tell you about a whole bunch of others who are worth billions and billions of dollars, who have schools named after them, who nobody would hide them. Their own kids wouldn’t even hide them “He is in the attic, he is in the attic”. That hiding is just a metaphor for love. If you have people that you want to love you, that do love you. If you leave out illness I have never found anyone who has dozens of people who love them, or would hide them using my metaphor, who is an unhappy person. I have seen all kinds of people that they are miserable. They have what the rest of the world may think is important, but they don’t have anybody who gives a damn about them. Being given unconditional love is the greatest benefit you can ever get. The incredible thing about love is that you can’t get rid of it. If you try to give it away you end up with twice as much, but if you try to hold onto it, it disappears. It is an extraordinary situation, where the people who just absolutely push it out, get it back tenfold. My friend Tom Murphy that I mentioned before, if he does 20 things for me he doesn’t expect even one back.