Ronestar's Wager

FED AUDIT OCTOBER TARGET

Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said he plans legislation to restrict the Federal Reserve's emergency lending powers and subject the central bank to a "complete audit."

I will bet my entire net worth that the Fed will not get audited in any meaningful way. If it doesn't happen, I double all my money, if it does happen, it won't matter my money will be revealed to be worthless.

At a recent town hall meeting, Frank said the House would pass a bill to use an audit to crack open the central bank's books more widely, but in a way that will not encroach on the central bank's monetary policy independence.

Oh wait, I love that last qualifier there. Gotta love politicians. Frank is no doubt in the pockets of the banks. This bill will not have any meaningful effect and will not be a true "audit." Hopefully RP sees through the misdirection when the final bill full of hot air is hammered out.

Will China and Oil be the Catalyst for market sell off?

SSE composite is down nearly 6% today. My S&P short last week may actually pay off. Hard to call the tops but I just had that feeling especially with Prechter and Leeb publicly calling the top and the Euro almost hitting a year high (dollar hitting low).

Now oil traders are questioning recovery. Looks like Goldman finally planted the seed (like they did with rumors of Lehman failure). This very well may be the start of P3.

Oil prices fell to near $72 a barrel Monday in Asia as China's stock market tumbled and commodities investors questioned whether the U.S. economy can recover strongly in the second half.

Benchmark crude for October delivery was down 41 cents to $72.34 a barrel by midday Singapore time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract Friday added 25 cents to settle at $72.74 after tumbling from near $75 earlier in the week.

Tumbling Asian stock markets, led by a 5.4 percent fall in China's benchmark, provided a negative cue for crude. Oil investors often look to stock markets as a barometer of sentiment about the economy.

Oil has traded near $70 a barrel for most of the last few months as investors struggle to gauge how robust the U.S. recovery will be. Crude has tried and failed several times, including last week, to break through the $75 level.

"Oil looks a little tired," said Christoffer Moltke-Leth, head of sales for Saxo Capital Markets in Singapore. "We're seeing an economic recovery, but that's already been built into the price."

The U.S. economy will likely have to grow at least 2 percent in the third quarter to enthuse traders and push the oil price past $75, Moltke-Leth said.

Investors will be eyeing the U.S. unemployment report on Friday as a key indicator of the economy's health. A high unemployment rate this year has undermined consumer confidence and hurt crude demand.

Oil could drift lower to near $65 a barrel during the next month on investor concerns the current economic recovery isn't sustainable, Moltke-Leth said.

"We could see another dip next year when the fiscal stimulus starts to fade," he said. "The consumer is still being careful."

In other Nymex trading, gasoline for September delivery was up 0.82 cent at $2.07 a gallon and heating oil was steady at $1.86 a gallon.

In London, Brent crude was down 49 cents at $72.30.

FDIC Broke, Possible catalyst for P3 wave

FDIC is broke


If the media and short hedge funds run with this, we can get a repeat of what happened last October, and the initiation of P3 of the elliot wave.

Agency that insures bank deposits may need help

Hammered by bank failures, FDIC may need to draw cash from banks or government

NEW YORK (AP) -- The government agency that guarantees you won't lose your money in a bank failure may need a lifeline of its own.

The coffers of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have been so depleted by the epidemic of collapsing financial institutions that analysts warn it could sink into the red by the end of this year.

That has happened only once before -- during the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s, when the FDIC was forced to borrow $15 billion from the Treasury and repay it later with interest.

On Thursday, the agency reveals how much is left in its reserves. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair may also use the quarterly briefing to say how the agency plans to shore up its accounts.

Small and midsize banks across the country have been hurt by rising loan defaults in the recession. When they fail, the FDIC is responsible for making sure depositors don't lose a cent.

It has two options to replenish its insurance fund in the short run: It can charge banks higher fees or it can take the more radical step of borrowing from the U.S. Treasury.

None of this means bank customers have anything to worry about. The FDIC is fully backed by the government, which means depositors' accounts are guaranteed up to $250,000 per account. And it still has billions in loss reserves apart from the insurance fund.

On Thursday, Bair will also update the number of banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions. That number shot up to 305 in the first quarter -- the highest since 1994 and up from 252 late last year.

Because of the surging bank failures, the FDIC's board voted Wednesday to make it easier for private investors to buy failed financial institutions.

Private equity funds have been criticized for taking too many risks and paying managers too much. But these days fewer healthy banks are willing to buy ailing banks, and the depth of the banking crisis appears to have softened the FDIC's resistance to private buyers.

Under the new rules, a buyer would need to maintain the failed bank's reserves at levels equal to 10 percent of its assets. An earlier proposal set the requirement at 15 percent.

The new policy also eases the rules on when private investors must maintain minimum levels of capital that might be needed to bolster banks they own.

But the FDIC sought to guard against private equity funds that might want to quickly buy and sell at a profit: It required the investors to maintain a bank's minimum capital levels for three years.

At least in theory, allowing private investors to buy failing banks would mean the FDIC could charge a higher price, shrinking the amount of losses the agency would have to cover.

Bair has not ruled out hiking premiums on banks for the second time this year or asking the Treasury for a short-term loan. She has said taking the longer-term step of drawing on the Treasury credit line is only for emergencies.

So far this year, 81 banks have failed, compared with just 25 last year -- and only three in 2007. Hundreds more banks are expected to fall in coming years because of souring loans for commercial real estate. That threatens to deplete the FDIC's fund.

"I think the public should expect the fund to go negative at some point," said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets, which has predicted that up to 1,000 banks -- or one in eight -- could disappear within three years.

Either lifeline for the FDIC carries risks. Borrowing from the Treasury could be seen as another taxpayer bailout. But charging more in premiums would shrink profits at healthy banks, squeeze troubled ones and make lending even tighter.

"The more you levy these assessments on banks, the less money they have to lend to the general population," said Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, an industry group that represents 5,000 banks.

Last week's failure of Guaranty Bank in Texas, the second-largest this year, is expected to cost the FDIC $3 billion. The FDIC recorded more than $19 billion in losses just through March.

The agency figures it will need $70 billion to cover bank failures through 2013, more than five times the $13 billion that was in the fund in March. The last time it was that low was during the S&L crisis in 1992, when the fund was down to $178 million.

Some critics say regulators have taken too long to shut down troubled banks. Chicago's Corus Bankshares, for example, has staggered for weeks under the weight of bad real estate loans.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said the agency seeks to strike a balance between helping troubled banks work through their problems "so there's zero cost to the deposit fund," and intervening quickly if there are no other options.

I shorted SPY

I pulled the trigger. I think it's time. Sept 99 puts.

Who is buying this market?

The market appears to continue its shot up in a straight arrow so one must ask where all the new money is coming from. I have two possible theories:

1) Fund managers - I am guessing/assuming that people generally do not change their 401k contributions even during recessions. One would think with unemployment rising, 401k contributions would be down. But who knows, maybe people increase their contributions because they think stocks are "cheap." Regardless people generally cannot pull out of their 401ks until retirement, and most are not verse enough in investments to be actively going in and out of funds (plus the fact that they put in incentives to prevent such actions).

So the fund managers who were scared to heck during March when Armageddon was looming, and in April and May when they were scared of valuations, are in a mad rush to chase performance.

2) Retail money - when someone suggests that "dumb retail money" is entering the market right now I have to reply with the question "with what money?" But then I am reminded of the recent trend that savings rates have been steadily increasing. If it is true that retail money is entering the market, it makes perfect sense. Spending goes down => savings goes up => savings yields are around 1% => stocks look "cheap" => retail money buys stocks.

Even with brain cancer, Ted Kennedey is still a hypocrite

Kennedy, looking ahead, urges that Senate seat be filled quickly. Seeks law change for interim post.

When John Kerry was running for president, Teddy got the state legislature to change the law in MA to take away the power of the governor to appoint a temporary senator if Kerry had won. Who was a governor? Republican Mitt Romney.

Now he wants the law changed back so the now *drumroll* DEMOCRAT governor can appoint his replacement because he's going to step down shortly.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Healthcare debate: will the "public option" lower costs?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Here it goes.

I love the notion that by offering a public plan it will inject competition and reduce costs. The problem with medicine is a SUPPLY problem, not an economies of scale problem. There is a short supply of medicine, and by offering artificially low priced "public option" you are effectively increasing demand. The supply remains fixed (unless you have magic beans that grow doctors, nurses, medical centers instantly) and demand skyrockets on an already strained system. This can only result higher prices.

What's going to happen is there will be two segments of medicine created. Whether it's a government agency or a coop a new org is created, and they will have to recruit doctors that will accept their low payout insurance. This attracts the lowest common denominator doctors. So what it does is creates a two tier medical system: public option doctors (probably poor performers), and private insurance doctors.

As with most under-priced goods and freebies, there is an immediate shortage and the public option is at over capacity. I predict private insurance will probably remain the same, but the prices will go up (PO competes for doctors, demand increases, prices/wages increase). They will not be accepting PO patients. Workers will see reduced pay in order to compensate for the increases in premiums; after all, all-in compensation should not be increasing.

Then the cluster-fun begins. The media will start broadcasting propaganda showing waiting rooms and hospitals of the PO system in disarray. Politicians will claim that it is discrimination for any doctor to reject PO insurance and will pass a law that disallows doctors that accept insurance to deny PO patients. The private system will now be combined with public and all medicine becomes public/private hybrid. Of course since we have a supply problem the system is further strained.

Meanwhile the rich of course will keep their doctors because they can just pay cash.

And because of the lack of funds there will be low PO payouts and more and more doctors will get out of medicine (career change and early retirement) and future candidates for MDs will seriously reconsider it as a career. The best of the best will consolidate and create the cash market and more doctors will migrate away from the PO. Maybe politicians will make private health practices illegal? Regardless, what ultimately will happen is long waits and rationing. Who knows, in order to curtail costs maybe we will get the death panel the right has been "misinforming" the public about.

Private insurers' profit margins will deteriorate because doctors will charge more for private to subsidize public. Customer migration to the PO and price controls will reduce revenues and will make managed health providers take huge losses from their traditional 4% profit margin. They go bankrupt. The public option will be a money pit because poor people won't pay anything and unhealthy people will contribute significantly less. Then the ones on the private plans will realize it makes no sense and all will get dumped on public and eventually evolve to UHC.

Fact Check

FACT: There were only 13 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 1000 in 2008
FACT: There were only 7 Health Insurance companies in the Fortune 500 in 2008.
FACT: Health Insurance corporate profits accounted for less than 1% of the total U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2008.
FACT: The average profit margin for Health Insurance companies was a measly 3.3% in 2008.
FACT: These profit numbers are on course to stay roughly the same in 2009.

What's worse, coming home and finding your furniture in the lawn, or finding out your house lost 66% of it's value?

Not sure what's worse, finding out your house was accidentally auctioned off or that your $260k house is now worth $87k.

Woman's House Mistakenly Auctioned by Bank

You know times are tough when people are getting kicked out of their house when it’s not even for sale.

That’s what happened to Anna Ramirez after she found all of her stuff out on the front lawn of her Homestead home last week and a strange man demanding she get out of his newly purchased house.

The eviction came after Ramirez’s home was mistakenly auctioned off to the highest bidder by her bank, Washington Mutual. Usually, you get a warning before you get the boot. A foreclosure letter. Maybe a sign saying your house is up for sale. Not Ramirez, who found her belongings bashed and battered in the street.

"This came out of nowhere," Ramirez said. "The bank took the house from right under my feet."

The man who bought the house told Ramirez he paid $87,000 for it, which shocked Ramirez, who bought the house for $260,000.

What's worse is her husband, daughter and grand children were also kicked out by Homestead and Miami-Dade police officers, said Martha Taylor, who witnessed the unexpected eviction.

"I have never seen anything like it," Taylor said. "They literally threw all her stuff on the front lawn. I didn't sleep that night and it wasn't even my house."

Ramirez and her family had three hours to get out of the house, police ordered. They had to stash their belongings at multiple locations and shacked up with a friend for the night as cops chained the doors of their home. With Taylor's help, Ramirez appeared before a judge two days later to explain what happened.

"I had all my stuff scattered everywhere," she said. "They did this in front all my neighbors. It was so embarassing."

A mistake in the Miami-Dade Clerk's Office appears to be behind the mishap, which landed Ramirez homeless for more than 24 hours.

The sale was eventually reversed by a Miami-Dade judge, allowing Ramirez to return to her old digs. Ramirez said she wants to sue for the damage to her furniture.

Ramirez has lived in the house for three years and recently refinanced the home with the bank.

"This shouldn't be happening, you know, because we did the right thing," she said. "We went step by step."

What does an undergrad at Columbia and a law degree at Harvard bring you?

Well, it certainly doesn't hide the fact that you're still an Occidental College transfer, and a douchebag. And hiding your test scores certainly questions your intelligence.

Call it a hunch

Call it a hunch...I think we might see that correction this week. Looking to load up on FAZ 29 or 30 August calls for a gamble.

Update: Strike that, 3x options are a rip off, way too much premium built in. Looking for SPY August 95 puts for ~10c. If we see quick 10% correction that is 45x your money.

Epic post by no other than ToastMaster

Epic enough for me to post it here.

Fundamental State of Our Economy
A reader asked yesterday what would fundamentally trigger a P3 collapse and consequently lead the world into a global depression. The short and simple answers are massive defaults of existing debt and loss of market confidence. The Federal Reserve’s current policy of quantitative easing seeks to reflate our way out of these impending defaults. It doesn’t take much to see the twisted nature of this logic and that such foolhardy policies will only provide a temporary reprieve. The financial crisis the United States faces is 30 years in the making and the policies being pursued by the Federal Reserve provides only a short-term remedy to what is a very serious and debilitating ailment. For all economists, media pundits, Green Shooters and Bears-turned-Bulls who now hail the Federal Reserve for its successful efforts in steering our economy clear from the Second Great Depression, I ask two questions. What are the fundamental problems of this crisis? And, what have we done to address and resolve those fundamental issues?

As a former mortgage and CDO credit analyst on Wall Street, I was at the epicenter of this credit crisis and witnessed first-hand the monumental implosion in the debt market. Outsiders to this very day place the blame of this crisis on the unscrupulous mortgage industry that aggressively pushed mortgage products onto borrowers they knew couldn’t afford them. They believe these overextended borrowers defaulted on their loans on a massive scale and consequently drove us into a liquidity crisis. I strongly believe this view to be narrow and, in many respects, ignorant. Mortgage credit is a subset, albeit a large one, in the great game of leverage our country is fully engaged in. It may have been the first domino to fall, but it was in no way a stand alone piece.

The fundamental cause of this crisis is leverage and our country’s addiction to it. Consumers, corporations and our government have embraced easy credit for so long that leverage is at the very heart of American culture. Needless to say, but leverage is a double-edged sword. It has contributed to almost 30 years of nearly uninterrupted prosperity; our elevated successes and overconfidence in the idea that is America has blinded us to certain realities; runaway growth can not go on forever and debt must eventually be repaid. Correction and regulation of exuberance and overconfidence are necessary and crucial to maintain the long-term viability of our economic system.

Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke do not share this view. The Maestro believed markets could charge ahead full throttle with only occasional and inconsequential rests so that markets don’t lose their momentum. This view was reflected by his eagerness to lower interest rates too soon and his notorious habit of keeping them low for too long. His Laissez-faire approach to reforms and regulation in the financial service sectors gave birth to many of the products that will lead to the destruction of our financial systems, such as Subprime and Alt-A mortgages, structured credit products, credit default swaps and other complex financial derivatives. Bernanke is no better than Greenspan. Under his leadership, the Federal Reserve made no real attempts to reform what is a deeply impaired and fractured financial system. Even to this very day, when our economy is in the throes of economic abyss, no new and meaningful regulations have been enacted to rein in on the credit markets, derivatives products and culture of Wall Street.

The current Federal Reserve does not believe the fundamental cause of our epic crisis is leverage. Rather, they believe the market failure we saw in 2007 and 2008 was due to a collapse in confidence and the lack of liquidity that ensued. In other words, Bernanke believes markets were on the brinks of complete collapsed because it did not have enough leverage! To better understand Bernanke misguided beliefs, one must first understand the framework in which he approached his doctorate’s thesis on the Great Depression. Bernanke examined the Great Depression through a comparative studies framework; that is, he analyzed different economies around the world and why some recovered sooner than others. As a former econometrics student myself, these types of studies are always tricky due to the presence of confounding variables. Of course, Bernanke uses confidence tests and other complex statistical methods to defend the validity of his conclusions. I am no Great Depression expert, but common sense tells me you can not solve a problem of leverage with more leverage. If I took out a credit card debt that I couldn’t pay off and kept rolling it over onto another credit card, I did not solve anything. I am merely delaying the day of reckoning and magnifying my indebtedness which will eventually lead to more, not less, problems.

If reality reveals anything, we are already seeing the ramifications of Bernanke’s policies. America is currently monetizing its national debt because foreign lenders are increasingly weary of lending to us. Many of our trading partners have already voiced concern about the level of our national debt and the long-term viability of the Dollar as a reserve currency. If Bernanke’s intent was to buy time, I ask, what steps have we taken to reform our banking systems, restructure our securitization industry, alleviate impending foreclosures in both residential and commercial properties, address concerns about our increasingly unmanageable national debt, among countless other fundamental problems that still loom over our financial system? The short answer is nothing. Other than paying worthless lip service for some vague need for reforms, this Federal Reserve and this administration has done nothing because they do not believe the root cause of this mess is leverage.

Bernanke’s defenders would argue that markets have rallied over 50% since March and such confidence is indicative of his policies’ success. This could not be further from the truth. Markets have fallen so much from its highs in 2007 and anyone who has traded markets long enough know markets were technically overdue for a powerful countertrend rally. Bear markets are known for its violent rallies due to massive short covering and performance chasing by asset managers. The P2 rally we are currently experiencing is vigorous and particularly unique in that federal liquidity is being used to support and guide markets higher; consequently, the same liquidity has probably kept this countertrend rally afloat much longer than it would have otherwise lasted on its own. For anyone who finds this PPT theory hard to believe, I ask why? Regulators around the world have long maintained open policies to intervene in currency and debt markets when needed. Historically, regulators have had no need to manipulate the equity markets because there was no national interest in inflating stock prices.

Unfortunately, our financial crisis is quite dire and like very few in the past; we are in a credit recession, not an inventory recession. The ability of companies to refinance and effectively avert bankruptcy is dependent on their share prices. If equity prices were allowed to collapse, these companies would not be able to roll over their existing debts. A collapse in equities may also breach debt covenants for some companies that may lead to asset sales or liquidation. On the consumer side, everyday Americans view the stock market as a barometer of the direction of this country. It is no coincidence that, in general, consumer confidence rises when stock markets rally and vise versa. One of the goals of Bernanke’s liquidity plan is to help stabilize equity prices so that markets have the confidence to help companies, especially banks, in need of recapitalization. This is where liquidity does not resolve the underlying problems of our economy. Rather, it provides a temporary support, creates a false sense of confidence and, in our particular case, false sense of overconfidence that we have now overcome what some believe is a run-of-the-mill recession.

Bernanke’s supporters have also distorted the analytical framework in viewing our current crisis and, in doing so, fooled Americans into believing there were no alternatives to the current Federal Reserve policies. Americans are currently led to believe that had drastic steps not been taken by the Fed, American would be in a Second Great Depression at present. I do not dispute this line of thinking. But I ask, is a severe market correction of 30 years of nearly uninterrupted prosperity avoidable? Perhaps a Great Depression is inevitable and the framework should have been, what can our country do so that we don’t exacerbate and prolong a much needed correction? Economic corrections give markets pause to reflect and correct policies, systems and environment that have led to unsustainable conditions. They allow markets to ultimately flush out excesses so that our nation—our financial systems re-emerge healthier and stronger than before.

The Fed has chosen to avoid this period of reflection at all expenses. The Fed has chosen to avert not a depression, but a much needed and painful de-leveraging process. By bailing out financial institutions and providing endless backstops, the Fed has created a moral hazard environment that rewards companies that mismanaged risks. Such policies has effectively socialized the losses of banks and failed companies, in which America has limited upside participation. Why not nationalize these failed banks and re-IPO them when they are fixed? Let private investors who made foolish bets on these banks take their rightful shares of losses instead of taxpayers, therefore reducing the amount of liabilities our government would have to assume in a nationalization effort. When the economy truly recovers, tax payers would reap all the benefits from years of austerity through re-IPO proceeds and a reformed banking system, instead of the pittance we received from TARP warrants so far. This is merely one example of an alternative solution to fixing our financial institutions that our corrupt regulators and media do not want public discourse on because bankers and private investors ultimately lose in this proposal.

Nothing has fundamentally changed or improved in our economy. Bernanke’s policies merely refashion the crisis. In very blunt terms, Bernanke has transformed a very serious credit crisis into series of outsized Ponzi schemes. Like all Ponzi schemes, either a loss of confidence or defaults will lead to their ignoble demise.

Market technicals, which are nothing more than quantitative representation and signals of market conditions, suggest current market climate is reminiscent of the trading environment observed prior to major market crashes. I, however, am not a technical purist that believes markets are primarily driven off technical indicators and Elliott Waves. I take a more complex view in that markets are reflexive. At times, market technicals and emotions drive trading actions and trends and, in other times, they are driven by real fundamentals. This reflexive nature can best be visualized as a shoe lace where at times, the right side (fundamentals) crosses over and is dominant over the left side (technicals/waves/emotions) and we observe the opposite in other periods.

Fundamentals do not currently support this rally. The rise in equities since March’s low has been driven by market technicals, overly optimistic expectations of improving fundamentals and outright manipulation. Technicals have already been suggesting we are near a top of this countertrend rally. However, technicals mean little when there is a powerful force manipulating markets to conform with its agenda. Our government will not give up so easily and, if anything, they have already proven they will resort to any and all creative devices to prevent a collapse in confidence. If they don’t use PPT to support the futures market, or issue upgrades of leadership stocks and sectors when markets appear ready to break, they fabricate economic data.

How often in this rally have we seen markets go berserk to the upside on terrible, yet better-than-expected, economic data? Only months after when everyone has forgotten about those numbers, our government stealthily revises them to the downside. Need I remind anyone GDP for Q1 2009 was revised down from -5.5% to -6.4%? That’s almost 1 full percentage point. Or what about Q4 2008 when GDP was reported at minus 3.8%, revised down to -6.1%, only to be revised down again to -6.3%? Does anyone see a pattern here? Understate the bad news so we rally off them. Months after market forgets, report the true numbers. Understate the new numbers but make sure they are better than the previous data point. Market rallies off better-than-expected data, with a little push in the futures of course! We see the same pattern in unemployment, claims number and other economic data. You would think market participants would have picked up on this duplicity, but that would be assuming too much about their collective wisdom.

With fundamentals and technicals no longer supporting this rally, this Ponzi scheme becomes a game of confidence. As long as investors believe a green shoot recovery is a quarter or two away, no one will sell and markets may continue to grind along. But as stated above, there are serious underlying problems with our global financial systems. I believe missed earnings and lower guidance in Q3 or Q4 may put a dent in consumer and investor confidence. Consumer spending makes up approximately 67% of the US economy. Short of cooking the books, how do companies expect to beat estimates and raise outlook when consumers are still facing job losses, wage cuts, underemployment and saving more than they have in the past 14 years? Why anyone expects us to blow out earnings in Q3 or Q4 is beyond my comprehension.

Another fundamental catalyst may be another country defaulting on its national debt. Although all the focus is on our national debt, I believe a default and subsequent currency crisis will not originate from the United States. UK’s credit outlook has already been downgraded by S&P; this is typically a prelude for a ratings downgrade on the sovereign debt. Such debt default or loss of confidence in a major industrial nation’s debt could lead to panic selling of risk assets and a rush back to traditional safe havens like the US Dollar and Treasuries.

If anything, our banking system is one of the biggest game of confidence in town, second only to our Treasury markets. I believe most of our banks are insolvent. A Goldman Sachs research report a few months ago estimates that banks are still carrying bad loans near par or assuming unrealistic haircuts. See chart below. The changes to accounting rules for valuing these securities have probably driven most of these values closer to par since this Goldman report back in March. Banks have to maintain this charade because even a markdown of 10% across the books would lead to their insolvencies given their leverage ratios.



No one knows for certain what fundamentally will trigger a collapse in confidence, but one thing is for sure; there is no shortage of highly levered problems waiting to explode. P3 will begin with some fundamental event that causes investors to doubt or lose confidence about an imminent recovery. Wave 3 of P3 is when markets finally realize we are deeply entrenched in a bear market. When Wave 3 of P3 begins, no amount of intervention by regulators will make up for missed expectations, lost hope and shattered dreams.

FHA heads the way of Fannie, from kleenex to toilet paper

Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors

On June 18, HUD’s Inspector General issued a scathing report on the FHA’s lax insurance practices. It found that the FHA’s default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days. The FHA’s reserve fund was found to have fallen in half, to 3% from 6.4% in 2007—meaning it now has a 33 to 1 leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory. The IG says the FHA may need a “Congressional appropriation intervention to make up the shortfall.

Here is your catalyst for the next financial crisis.

Geithner: We need to monetize US debt

Well, not in those exact words. Good piece writte by ToastMaster:

In a letter to lawmakers on Friday, Timothy Geithner asked Congress to increase the national debt limit. The Treasury Secretary wrote,

"It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations"

Did Geithner just state that we need to issue new debt to service and pay off old ones, which is essentially monetization? Did our Treasury chief just implicitly admit that our Treasuries constitute the largest Ponzi scheme in history? I will be keeping a keen eye on this development and how markets react in the following weeks. In the event lawmakers rebuff Geithner's request, do not be surprise if this piece of news gets underreported to minimize any impact on markets.

I would say the question to ask is, "at what point does it become a ponzi scheme?" It's hard to say, as it would be completely subjective. Fundamentally the US is not a "ponzi" scheme per se. We do create real valuable goods and services. But at what point does monetary excess effectively make it partially a ponzi (well it is at least already, but I mean more like enough to make it significant)?

I don't think you can really come up with a number (i.e. as a % of GDP). But I do think a tell tale sign is such what Geithner said. What he is quoted as saying is "let's effectively monetize debt." This feels like the beginning of the end.

So what is the end? Who knows. Maybe it's the death of the dollar and reissue of a new dollar some time in the future. Either way, the ability of the US to raise new debt will be significantly crippled at that point. And that may not be a bad thing.

If such crisis is needed to bring real "change," I say bring on unsustainable deficits.

Fannie Mae still worthless, still government leech

1) Stop giving Fannie Mae money
2) File BK
3) ...
4) Profit!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-Mae-seeks-107B-in-US-apf-3979081619.html?x=0&.v=10

Fannie Mae is seeking an additional $10.7 billion in government aid after posting another massive quarterly loss as the taxpayer bill from the housing market bust keeps growing.

The mortgage finance company, seized by federal regulators last September, posted a second-quarter loss of $15.2 billion, or $2.67 per share, including $411 million in dividend payouts. That compares with a loss of $2.6 billion, or $2.54 per share, in the year-ago period.

The government, which seized control of Fannie Mae and its sibling Freddie Mac last September, has already spent about $85 billion to prop up the two companies. Fannie Mae's new request from the Treasury Department will bring the total to nearly $96 billion. Freddie Mac is expected to report its quarterly results on Friday.

"We are dependent on the continued support of Treasury in order to continue operating our business," Fannie Mae said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing late Thursday.

The results were driven by $18.8 billion in credit losses due to declining housing market conditions, made worse by rising unemployment. Nearly 4 percent of the loans Fannie Mae owns or guarantees were delinquent as of June 30, up from 1.4 percent a year earlier.

How do people spend their day?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/business/20080801-metrics-graphic.html?em

Interesting tidbits in there.

GM gets $16 billion tax break unavailable to others

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574314180298525294.html

As everyone else’s taxes rise, one favored outfit may not have to pay federal taxes for years: General Motors. In another sweet deal from its benefactors on Pennsylvania Avenue, the government-owned car company is set to profit from billions of dollars in tax breaks not available to other businesses in the same predicament.

The new GM will be allowed to claim a tax benefit from some $16 billion of net operating losses carried over from the old company, allowing it to avoid paying taxes on future profits, perhaps for years. The issue is a common accounting practice called “tax-loss carry forward,” under which businesses can write off losses against future profits for up to 20 years.

This isn't socialism right?
Government majority shareholder - check
Government mandating GM make smaller cars - check
Government giving GM special tax breaks and not to others - check

FDIC pre-announces bank failure crisis part deux

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fdic-tells-banks-to-recognize-loan-losses-promptly-2009-08-03

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said late Monday that banks should recognize losses on home loans promptly and warned that failure to do so could delay efforts to mitigate the financial impact.

Institutions must analyze the collectibility of the loans they hold for investment at least every quarter, the FDIC said in a statement on its Web site.

Banks then have to keep an appropriate allowance for loan and lease losses, covering estimated credit losses on individually evaluated loans that are deemed to be impaired, and on groups of loans with similar risk characteristics, the regulator said.

I have speculated that the banks are still technically insolvent, and bank stock prices are effectively call options that don't expire. This further establishes my hypothesis. If we are to get a correction in to Q3 earnings, this may be the catalyst to do it.

The following was a response in a forum:

The problem with this analysis is the same as when the bankers used flawed reasoning to make the loans in the first place. The bankers/investors/brokers etc all made an implicit assumption that real estate values would continue to go up indefinitely, thereby protecting their investment from default. They didn't factor in the cascading effect that massive defaults would have.

This analysis (in the OP) similarly figures that all the "bad paper" out there is permanently "bad", and that the current (rough) climate for employment and resale of foreclosed property will continue indefinitely.

If and when the economy starts to recover, the amount of loans that can be considered "bad" will drop, and property values will eventually increase again. That means banks holding those properties are going to gain significant value back.

This still doesn't solve short term insolvency issue. And the faulty assumptions bankers used you mentioned in the boom and bust can be applied to your statement that when the economy starts to recover property values will increase again. The problem is that right now they are still dropping, and you are assuming there will be some kind of price recovery. The price recovery you are talking about will not happen in the short term, if at all, and the amount of price recovery needed to make the toilet paper worth anything is very large. We lost a generation worth of housing gains in a matter of a couple years, I can speculate we will not reach that level for a very long time, if ever in our lifetime (in real terms).

*SPECIAL ALERT* Coin flips not 50/50

Apparently flipping a coin isn't 50/50, it's 51/49.

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/hey-wait-minute/2009/07/28/flipping-out?page=0,1&g=1

The physics—and math—behind this discovery are very complex. But some of the basic ideas are simple: If the force of the flip is the same, the outcome is the same. To understand more about flips, the academics built a coin-tossing machine and filmed it using a slow-motion camera. This confirmed that the outcome of flips isn't random. The machine could make the toss come out heads every time.

When people, rather than a machine, flipped the coin, results were less predictable, but there was still a slight physical bias favoring the position the coin started in. If the coin started heads up, then it would land heads up 51 percent of the time. Part of the reason real flips are less certain isn't just that the force of the flip can vary; it's that coins flipped by humans tend to rotate around several axes at once. Flipped coins tumble over and over, but they also spin around and around, like pizza dough being twirled. This spinning around is technically known as "precession." The greater the precession in a flip, the more unpredictable the outcome.

Why So Socialist?

Apparently these posters are popping up in Los Angeles. Hopefully it will spread like wildfire throughout the country. So what can one make out of the poster? Is it implying the Joker was a socialist? Or was Heath Ledger a socialist?

Possible interpretations:
Obama = Joke
The Joker = Sociopath
The Joker aims to bring about the collapse of society and anarchy. Obama seems to have a similar intent and bring about socialist utopia.

Now the question is, who will be The Batman? Ron Paul? Paul Ryan?