Musing on the Markets : Credit Crisis

We (Still) Don't Know What We Don't Know

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:08:00 GMT

So, here we are. More than two years into what started out as a credit crisis, one plus year after the Lehman collapse and a question that pertains to the one of the central workings of the equities market cannot be answered.

At last evening's Market Technicians Association Educational Foundation seminar, the question your trusty moderator (that's me) posed to the esteemed panel with its decades of experience was in regards to volume. Specifically, the equity markets' volume as recorded each day for every stock traded. That is, the volume that accompanies the price action that results in the market capitalization of the stock market that results in the market value of every investor's portfolio.

Many market analysts have noted the low volume that has accompanied this bull rally. Some have used this fact as a reason to be more cautious, even bearish. Others have cited that low volume bull rallies have occurred in the past and this one is no different. However, in the past, the volume recorded for equity trades completed were quite accurate and reliable, being recorded on exchanges and reported accordingly. Today, the picture is not quite so clear.

With so much trading occurring in the off the exchanges hidden recesses of dark pools and structured products, I asked my very knowledgeable panel, can any investor rely on the volume figures being generated in this current market to measure the strength of the price action of a stock? The answer received was, "We don't know". Well, if this well connected, highly informed group of individuals doesn't know, you can easily assume that just about no one knows. Do you?

The importance of understanding this issue goes beyond its impact on basic market analysis tools (such as technical analysis) and cuts to the heart of a financial system that is still shrouded in opaqueness.

Transparency remains elusive. Yet, transparency (knowing what investors need to know) is vital to the restoration of a sustained confidence in a system that can be measured. When trades occur in the dark corners of dark pools and other off-exchange structured products, clarity as to what exactly is transpiring becomes the victim and investors seeking to measure the market become the equivalent of a bystander to a drive-by financial shooting.

Investment Strategy Implications

Nothing increases the risk factor of any investment more than the dangers posed by ignorance. Yet, here we are. More than two years into what started out as a credit crisis, one plus year after the Lehman collapse and we still don't have a clear idea of what exactly is transpiring in a central part of the capital markets - equities.

For those who might be tempted to dismiss such concerns I simply point to the two key impacts of changing equity prices: the wealth effect and the cost of capital. Both directly impact the real economy, in the current case in a positive way. Were it not for rising market values, the current government policies designed to rescue the US (and global) economy would be brought into doubt. And doubt, a close cousin of uncertainty, is a bad thing for a fragile economic environment.

Price without volume is an incomplete measure of the strength (or weakness) of a market move. Yet, in the current environment, price is the only metric that can be tracked with clarity. Volume, its indicator of power, cannot.

Two years and running and we still don't know what we don't know.

To further the exploration of what we don't know tomorrow I will describe how hedge fund replication products pose a potential threat to the equity markets.

Vinny Catalano, CFA, Global Investment Strategist with Blue Marble Research publishes the "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter, which contains the market beating Model Growth Portfolio. To learn about subscribing as well as other benefits, click here.

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Susanne Trimbath, Ph. D.

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:26:00 GMT

My interview with the CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services includes her libertarian perspectives on the virtuous circle, the risks in the Fed's exit strategy, key consequences of financial innovation, and the next global financial crisis: public debt. Dr. Trimbath is also the author of "Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets".

The length of the interview is 18 minutes 28 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

The 3 Phases of this Bull Market

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:41:00 GMT

The stock market rally since early March appears to have three distinct phases to it.

The first phase was the backing off from the economic abyss. The second phase was a bounce to fair value normalcy. The third phase (the one we are in now) is what I would call the return to business as usual phase (or “Recession. What recession?).

From where I sit, the first two phases were justified on many levels. Both phases featured massive amounts of government intervention combined with strong technicals to produce a rally to fair value. The elimination of the tail risk of the Great Depression II was followed by the above consensus macro economic readings (my MERI indicator), which was reinforced by the above consensus earnings results of 2Q09. Stocks rose to a reasonable fair value. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, at this point the seeds of questionable earlier decisions began to bear fruit. (Now, this going to sound very libertarian, so here goes.) Instead of pursuing the necessary cleansing process that all excesses produce, the Obama administration (which includes the US Treasury and the “independent” Federal Reserve) opted for a massive debt transference from the private to the public sector with the hope that time will heal all wounds. Along with this decision to socialize the bad behavior of the private sector most responsible for the crisis, the financial services industry, the Obama administration supported its core structure built on the laissez-faire era of the past two decades, accepting the largely unsubstantiated argument that financial innovation is a vital and necessary good for the economy.

With the government’s tacit support of the status quo, the investment mood shifted from fear and concern to hope and then enthusiasm.

The evidence of this mood shift back to the animal spirits days of yore came from a logical source – the financial services industry, the very sector of the global economy that provided the financial innovation grease to the out of control freight train of credit. And what better symbolic locomotive than Goldman Sachs, whose earnings report of July 14th whistled the bad old days were back in action. At this point, the Obama administration swung into action – with silence.

With its absence of outrage, the increasingly politically tone deaf Obama administration sent the public policy signal that its okay to bring the world economy to its knees, its okay to get bailed out with taxpayer money, its okay to shrink the competitive landscape (via Bear and Lehman’s demise), and its okay to return to the way things were – big profits and in your face fat bonuses.

The product of this wink and nod to Wall Street was the backlash at town hall meetings, which were as much about fairness as they were about healthcare reform concerns, a paranoid view of government, and a reactionary view of what constitutes being an American. It also produced an enthusiasm for stocks and an implied return to the bad old days.

Investment Strategy Implications

When you combine all these factors with the massive amount of investment capital ($3.5 trillion) still sitting in the near zero interest rate money market sidelines, the rising belief among many institutional investors that P/Es above their historical average are justified in the current low inflation environment, and the fledgling confidence that the global economy is on the mend* (along with the blind faith that the economic data from China is real), it is understandable how valuation levels could get to where they are today – stretched.

The investment question then becomes, “Is this a solid enough foundation upon which sustainable bull markets are built?” I have my doubts.

*I suggest reading Nouriel Roubini's comments in yesterday's FT.

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Gillian Tett

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:33:00 GMT

My interview with the assistant editor of the Financial Times and author of "Fool's Gold" includes key aspects of financial innovation, the consequences of a reluctance to lend by financial institutions, the utility qualities of the financial services industry, and the transitional nature of both the financial services industry and the global economy.

The length of the interview is 16 minutes 24 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Equity Market Headwinds: No Margin for Error

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:28:00 GMT

While it is encouraging that equities have rallied to the point where many 200 day moving averages are either flat or nearly so and nearly all sectors, styles, regions, and countries are above their 50 day moving average, not to mention the fact that many 50 day MAs have an upward slope, there are reasons, both fundamental and technical, to be more cautious about stocks over the near term.

The concern on the fundamental side is centered on valuation. For investors may have looked into the Great Depression II abyss and concluded that the worse case scenario (under $50 operating earnings for the S&P 500 for 2009) is less likely than it was 30 days ago. However, the current level of 850 for the S&P 500 implies either an above historically good time average P/E of 15 and/or earnings above $60. Look at it this way, if stocks are a forward looking discounting mechanism and if its projected return is its historical average of 12%, then 850 today implies a 12 month price level of 952. That then supposes that 12 months forward to the end of 2010 would put the S&P 500 at 1066 (952 plus 12%). To justify 1066 and assuming the market’s historical good times P/E of 15 assumes $71 in operating earnings for 2010. That may come to pass but the great economic unknown is not 2009 but 2010, for it relies on the economic handoff from government to private enterprise and the consumer. The fundamental valuation conclusion then becomes a future time period that does not warrant an above average margin of error. Frankly, at 852 that’s a conclusion I am less than fully invested comfortable living with, more so when considering the following technical analysis points.

From a technical analysis perspective, many market technicians point to the favorable chart patterns, with bottom formations and upside breakouts. They may be right but it has been my experience that chart patterns have a far reduced predictive value than momentum and divergence indicators, and those indicators are not so sanguine right now. As the above chart* illustrates, for example, Momentum is clearly in deceleration mode and not confirming MACD’s sustained and confirming strength. Experience shows that only when both are in unison (confirming higher highs in price, for example) can an investor feel more confident of the sustainability of the move. Added to this concern is the high overbought readings in the short term indicator, Slow Stochastics. Readings above 80 typically cause markets to pause.

Investment Strategy Implications

For the above stated reasons, taking some money off the table is advisable. Granted seasonal factors, such as April being the second best performing month of the year (historically), are supportive of higher stock prices. Moreover, there is every reason to feel more confident that, for the very short term, the worst of the economic and credit crisis has passed. However, concerns both fundamental and technical seem to warrant a less than fully invested posture at this time.

*Note how the Momentum reading is nearly flat while MACD is steady up.

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Dr. Robert Barbera

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:40:00 GMT

My interview with the Executive Vice President and Chief Economist at ITG and author of The Cost of Capitalism: Understanding Market Mayhem and Stabilizing Our Economic Future explored the real world economic pragmatism articulated in his just published book - notably the principles of Hyman Minsky, the Minsky Moment, how the financial markets are a source of economic instability, and why free market capitalism is still the best way to go. We also touched on his views re the current economic climate.

The length of the interview is 13 minutes 34 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.

In Defense of Financial Innovation

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:55:00 GMT

There is considerable talk (much of it rather regressive) about the future of the financial system. In one camp are the advocates of a return to basic banking. Think George Bailey and “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Paul Krugman, John Bogle, and Meredith Whitney appear to belong to this group. Then there are those who believe that the system should evolve from where it was, only with better oversight and far greater transparency. By all accounts, Secretary Geithner and Mohammed El-Erian belong to this group.

As unpopular as it currently may be, I’m on the side of the Treasury Secretary and PIMCO CEO for the following reasons:

I believe financial innovation must be allowed to grow and even flourish as the benefits of risk management and opportunistic investing through derivatives, structured finance, and other heretofore unknown instruments is vital to the complex world of globalization. Financial innovation allows for the more efficient use of capital in new and innovative ways thereby enabling greater growth potential across most markets and economies. Perhaps most importantly, as providers of global capital, financial innovation is important to the dominant players in the markets - major institutional investors (pension fund, endowments, hedge funds, etc) - and their ability to manage large sums of money in the vast and growing global markets and economy. They want it. Even need it.

The George Bailey model is simplification for its own sake. A Luddite-like natural recoil action to the pain and suffering caused by the failure of proper oversight and transparency. Moreover, the Bailey model would relegate the US financial institutions to a dumbed-down version of finance completely at odds with a globalized world and economic system (not to mention the unintended consequences of assets flowing to other, more forward-thinking markets). I believe Secretary Geithner sees and understands this and that is why, much to the consternation of many old school thinkers, he is intent on keeping the current financial infrastructure in place, just fix that which went out of control via limited oversight and inadequate transparency.

With better oversight and greater transparency, the benefits of financial innovation to the global economic system far outweigh the damage wrought by the inept supervision of a complex world of finance.

Think of it this way, did FDR blow up the stock market after the 1929 to 32 crash? What he did was create the SEC, which served the system well until the free market ideologues got control of it over the past several decades and, with the aid of financial innovation, allowed the animal spirits to run roughshod over common sense. Another example would be the Internet and the tech bubble blow up. Did technology innovation stop because of Enron and WorldCom and the multitudes of dotcom implosions? Of course not.

Financial innovation is a tool. And like any tool, it can be used for good or ill. You don't ban knives because someone gets stabbed. You don't ban guns because someone gets shot. And you don't ban cars because someone gets run over. Innovation is essential for forward progress. And, in the case of finance, an enabler of better asset and risk management.

Financial innovation is the baby. Don't throw him out with the bath water of poor oversight and limited transparency.

Why Paul Krugman is Wrong

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Let me start by saying that on many levels, I agree with Paul Krugman. I read his blog regularly and find his work to be of significant value. I also share many of his political views and leanings. But when he makes the market efficiency argument, he has entered a space where he is wholly unqualified to roam. For in several of his recent postings that is, in effect, what he has done. Like other economists that I know, he is attempting to apply his social science skills in economics to the social science skills in investing. In this regard, Krugman is wrong on three levels.

First, to argue against the Geithner plan (accurately portrayed as seeing the problem as one of liquidity and not solvency) is argue that the markets AT ALL TIMES, IN ALL CONDITIONS know what the fair value of any asset is at any and all times. Yet, everyone acknowledges that the market for the so-called “toxic assets” is dysfunctional. And central to its dysfunctionality is their illiquidity. So, if certain markets for certain instruments are dysfunctional (which includes valuation) due in large part to illiquidity then why isn’t the conclusion that liquidity and not solvency the core of the problem?*

Second, if making the dogmatic argument for market efficiency weren’t enough, Krugman then moves into the math space and applies bizarro logic to the actions professional investors will likely take as they participate in the Geithner PPIP plan: “Let me offer a numerical example. Suppose that there’s an asset with an uncertain value: there’s an equal chance that it will be worth either 150 or 50. So the expected value is 100. But suppose that I can buy this asset with a nonrecourse loan equal to 85 percent of the purchase price. How much would I be willing to pay for the asset? The answer is, slightly over 130. Why? All I have to put up is 15 percent of the price — 19.5, if the asset costs 130. That’s the most I can lose. On the other hand, if the asset turns out to be worth 150, I gain 20. So it’s a good deal for me.”

The logic of this example falls on its face on three levels. First, no professional investor is going to invest in a 50/50 bet (20 points I win, 19.5 points I lose). That ½ point return advantage is all of 38 basis points of upside potential! Does anyone reading this believe that PIMCO, for example, will make such a bet? I don’t. Moreover, since the US government is involved in the process, it is equally hard to imagine that Geithner and Bernanke would allow the US equity stake to engage in boneheaded bid up purchases. Lastly, and most importantly, just what valuation methodology will the PPIP parties engage in? How about one that is rooted in sound economic principles, say, the discounted cash flow method. In the Krugman math example, no such sane and prudent approach will occur.

The third part of Krugman’s argument that is problematic goes right to the heart of his economic skills and the illogic of his thinking when it comes to asset values. Specifically, how will the economic stimuli (monetary and fiscal) that he so strongly advocates in favor of have a positive effect on the economy yet somehow have little to no effect on asset values? Specifically, how do trillions of dollars move the US economy yet asset values for the length of the “toxic assets” remain depressed, if not plunge further? Why wouldn't such assets at least maintain their discounted cash flow values?

You Know You’re In Trouble When Gingrich Agrees With You

Advocate views like Krugman’s make strange bedfellows. So, it is no surprise to see none other than Newt Gingrich sing the praises of Paul’s folly. At least, however, Gingrich’s argument is rooted in the political sphere as he tries to attribute motive to the Obama administration with statements such as “We are currently being run by a left wing machine that want the United States as we have known it to cease to exist”.** Whereas Krugman’s argument is rooted in the dogma of market efficiency.

Liquidity Not Solvency

The central part of the so-called “toxic assets” argument has been liquidity versus solvency. Those with an understanding of how markets work (like Geithner and his predecessor, Hank Paulson) see it principally as a liquidity problem. Those with Nobel prizes living in ivory towers see it otherwise.

I love you, Paul. But on this one, you win the booby prize.

*Of course, other factors such as the economic outlook play a key role in the depressed pricing. However, just as the case with the price of oil last summer, non economic factors play an exacerbating role.

**Setting the standard Republican fear mongering playbook aside, Gingrich’s arguments do offer an alternative methodology, which interestingly contain several very workable elements such as creating an online auction, let the participants decide the value, and cover the losses.

To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.

Street Scan

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:17:00 GMT

Billionaires are now Slumdog Millionaires because:

A. The credit markets remain frozen
B. The US economy is falling off the cliff
C. Corporate earnings are headed substantially lower (<$50 S&P 500 operating earnings)
D. The socialist programs of the Obama administration threaten capitalism as we know it
E. All of the above, and then some
***
from International Monetary Fund “Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) Market Update”
January 28, 2009

“Until now banks have managed to obtain sufficient capital to offset existing writedowns, but that is mainly due to the massive public sector injections of capital in the fourth quarter. The worsening credit conditions affecting a broader range of markets have raised our estimate of the potential deterioration in U.S.-originated credit assets held by banks and others from $1.4 trillion in the October 2008 GFSR to $2.2 trillion. Much of this deterioration has occurred in the mark-to-market portion of our estimates (mostly securities)*, especially in corporate and commercial real estate securities, but degradation is also occurring in the loan books of banks, reflecting the weakening outlook for the economy.”
***
Aggregate assets in money market funds (institutional and retail): $4 trillion (approx.)
Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 as of March 9, 2009: $5.9 trillion
***
from Dave Rosenberg, North American Economist, Merrill Lynch
March 9, 2009

"Beige Book mentions nine positive areas
Even if we still do not see a bottom in sight just yet for the economy or the equity market, there are sectors that at least from a macro standpoint have a relatively firm underpinning even in the midst of this unbelievably severe recession and bear market phase. We have said it once and we will say it again, the Fed's Beige Book offers up the most timely and detailed information on sectors. The most recent report that was issued last week contained positive mentions on these nine areas of the economy:
􀂄 Food production
􀂄 Pharmaceuticals
􀂄 Apparel retailing
􀂄 IT services
􀂄 Biotech
􀂄 Aircraft manufacturing
􀂄 Fast food restaurants
􀂄 Discount stores
􀂄 Environmental services

Positives outperformed the market by 800 basis points
While these sectors, on average, were down 8% between the most recent Beige Book and the one that preceded it in early January, they collectively outperformed the market by 800 basis points.

21 negative sectors mentioned
At the same time, there were 21 sectors that received negative mentions in last week's Beige Book. They are listed below:
􀂄 Travel/tourism
􀂄 Education services
􀂄 Luxury goods (jewelry)
􀂄 Agri-business
􀂄 Banks
􀂄 Homebuilding
􀂄 Electronic equipment
􀂄 Computers
􀂄 Motor vehicles
􀂄 Staffing services
􀂄 Commercial real estate
􀂄 Rails/Trucking
􀂄 Furniture/Appliances
􀂄 Health care services (elective)
􀂄 Oil drilling
􀂄 Metals and mining
􀂄 Wood products
􀂄 Media services
􀂄 Petrochemicals
􀂄 Construction equipment
􀂄 Semiconductors

So, for every positive mention, there were more than two negatives. The S&P 500 sector equivalents, on average, declined 26% between the last two Beige Books, and underperformed as a group by 1,000 basis points."
***
email sent last night to "Kudlow Report" producer Donna Vislocky in response to Larry’s plea for bullish commentators:

“On tonight's program, Larry said his producers were having a hard time booking those who were bullish. Well, here I am.

As someone who is now 100% invested, I am at the opposite end of when I last appeared on your program in early 2007 when I was highly cautious. Today, however, the picture is swung completely to the other side of the pendulum.

Here are a few bullish reasons that I am more than willing to debate a bear:

1 - Investor psychology is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Too bearish now, just like they were too bullish two years ago.
2 - A mountain of cash sits in money market funds - nearly $4 trillion. The stock market value for the S&P 500 stands today at $5.9 trillion.
3 - Valuation levels in many areas are very attractive and any upside earnings surprise would drive stocks higher.
4 - Technical analysis has recently begun to generate some positive divergences - downward momentum pressures have diminished, divergences (emerging markets, for example) have, uh, emerged.

Moreover, as someone who has criticized mark-to-market since March of last year, I am in complete alignment with one of tonight's guests, Steve Forbes.”

*emphasis added

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Joe Battipaglia

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:59:00 GMT

In my second conversation with the Market Strategist/Private Client Group for Stifel Nicholas and Chief Investment Officer with Washington Crossing Advisors we discussed his deep and long recession call, the consequences to earnings, the inefficiencies of government spending, and the lack of a central theme to the Obama stimulus plan.

The length of the interview is 15 minutes 35 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

*To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.

Beyond the Sound Bite: An Interview with Donald Rissmiller

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:40:00 GMT

In my second interview with the Chief Economist at Strategas Research Partners we explore the probabilities of multiple economic Ws, the importance of monitoring interest rate sensitive industries, capex for signs of economic stability, and the multiplier effect of the monetary and fiscal stimulus, and the need for global coordination of economic stimuli.

The length of the interview is 12 minutes 48 seconds.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

*To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.

TARP Version 1 Revisited: Mark-to-Market Back in the Crosshairs

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:38:00 GMT

“Senior Wall Street executives said yesterday that they had been sounded out on plans for an “aggregator bank” that would purchase toxic assets from banks. Under one of the plans discussed, toxic assets would be valued by an independent third party. Where assets are purchased at prices below their book values, the government might then inject common equity into the banks to make up for capital wiped out by the sales.”
Financial Times, January 28, 2009

On the surface, mixed signals are emanating out of the US Treasury department. Last week, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that he was comfortable with mark-to-market accounting. Today, we learn of the above quoted plan, which is a direct assault on mark-to-market – the real villain in turning a recession into potentially a depression. What gives?

To refresh your memory, mark-to-market accounting is rooted in the failed ideology of the efficient market hypothesis, which (in its “strong” form) says that when it comes to determining the fair value of an asset the market knows best. This dogma is so entrenched in the thinking of mainstream economists and many naïve investors that even Nobel Laureates such as Paul Krugman ascribe to this fantasy of the “wisdom of the market” (see "More on the bad bank"). Moreover, there is little doubt on these pages that the primary reason why TARP Version 1 went from “price discovery” (code for attacking mark-to-market) to bank capital infusions was due to the intimidation of then Treasury Paulsen by mainstream, non behavioral finance economists.

Investment Strategy Implications

Conspiracy theorist alert: Clever guy this Mr. Geithner. Publicly advocate for free market principles (mark-to-market) while working behind the scenes to exploit it (through the aggregator bank and price discovery (courtesy the "independent third party")).

The significance of keeping mark-to-market intact is the extraordinarily positive impact it will have on bank earnings as assets held at 20 cents on the dollar are written up ("say what?" you say) thereby producing large earnings gains. Moreover, by stabilizing the valuations of “toxic assets”, write ups will thereby alleviate banks’ capital requirements, which is the primary reason why bankers are reluctant to lend. Under the bizarro logic of mark-to-market, they need the cash to remain solvent – hence no lending.

Once mark-to-market is replaced by something like mark-to-maturity (suggested by Bernanke during early days of TARP Version 1), then, miraculously, liquidity will begin to flow through the banking system to the real economy. Sounds too simple? Allow me to refresh your memory on another non real economy factor that wrecked a large amount of unnecessary havoc on the global economy – commodity speculation and the price of oil.

*To learn about "Sectors and Styles Strategy Report" newsletter and other subscriber benefits, click here.

Helicopter Hank

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:30:00 GMT

“It is like if you are in an airplane and the oxygen mask comes down,” said Stefanie Kimball, (Independent Bank’s) chief lending officer. “First thing you do is put your own mask on, stabilize yourself.”

"In Michigan, Bank Lends Little of Its Bailout Funds"
NY Times, January 14, 2009

The above quote and article captures the essence of the TARP money dump by Helicopter Hank in 2008. This is, no doubt, a large part of the dynamic that has investors worried, but not in the way that may seem apparent.

Under Obama and the Democrats, TARP funds will be allocated in a striking different manner. And this fact justifiably has many investors concerned that a significant increase in bank failures will be a part of the economic landscape this year: something that the accompanying chart from the Economist strongly suggests. Moreover, with no political dynamic at work this year, it is hard envision any scenario in which the second wave of TARP money would find its way to undeserving banks and with such poor transparency and regard for the terms under which such money is made available. As a result, investors should expect that banks with shaky balance sheets are headed for the operational dustbin. And with them, the economic consequences of the deleveraging process will continue unabated.

Investment Strategy Implications

Were it not for the fact that the stock market is deeply oversold, this morning’s 10 to 1 down ratio (both the advance/decline and advance/decline volume) might lead some to conclude that a return to the really bad old days of last year (with 5% + down days, rising VIX levels, banking crisis du jour, and more pain to follow) is underway rather than a second selling climax based on fears well known, defined, and, yes, manageable.

On the assumption that the plethora of money already doled out and what’s in the monetary and fiscal pipeline (including the Fed’s acquisition of selected “toxic assets” and the prospects for bank “write ups”) will have the desired effect of injecting into the US economic body enough juice to trigger the badly needed multiplier effect on corporations and households beginning in the second half of the year, a cautiously optimistic view of equities does seem warranted - at least for the next several months.

Helicopter Hank did what he did and in a manner that only he fully appreciates*. In short order, his actions will be perceived as they should be – a prelude to the real work of restoring the US and global economy to a more balanced era of growth and stability.

*A more conspiratorial mind might suspect there was a political dimension to his largess as 2008 was a presidential and congressional year. Providing “walking around money” to banks who did not qualify under the agreement that healthy banks should receive TARP funds does make one wonder just what was Helicopter Hank thinking?

A Most Dangerous Inflection Point

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:51:00 GMT

“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.”
President-elect Barack Obama
January 3, 2009

There is a major economic battle underway pitting the resurgent Keynesian forces of President-elect Franklin Delano Obama against the monetarists and the remnants of the laissez faire/supply side crowd. To exemplify this policy struggle, consider the following two recent quotes from Paul Krugman:

“The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.”

“(Milton) Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time.”

To help complete the picture of this economic/political battle royal we have the factions of the newly empowered Democratic Party and its liberal wing seeking to spend the political capital they think they have earned courtesy the recent election results. Then, on top of all this is the stickiness of Washington business as usual and the reality that entrenched power is rarely ceded without a fight.

Needless to say, the task before Mr. Obama is daunting. And we will all learn if his campaigning skills can be translated into effective policy decisions.

Investment Strategy Implications

The central question is not whether all the money being thrown at the global economy (both fiscal and monetary) will produce positive results. It will. Rather, the key question is whether the policy actions under vigorous (and potentially divisive) debate involving trillions of dollars ends up stabilizing and then turning things around or merely mutes the decline to an era of lessened living standards and a lower quality of life. If the former, a new era of growth ensues. If the latter, get ready for the Great Depression II and a highly dangerous future.

Quotable Quotes: Dr. Doom (Nouriel Roubini) is 100% in Equities?!!

Vinny Catalano, CFA — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:32:00 GMT

"I am not in the Armageddon camp". So states the one economist who got the current economic climate right for (more importantly) the right reasons. Given that fact, however, why is his personal money 100% in equities?

To hear Dr. Roubini's comments from this morning Yahoo! Finance "Tech Ticker",click here

Have a good weekend.