Thoughts From The Frontline : Subprime

Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Bailout?

John Mauldin — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:52:04 GMT

Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Bailout?
It's the End of the World As We Know It
The TED Spread Flashes Trouble
The Transmission Mechanism
Let's Make a Deal
Colorado, California, London, and Sweden

"A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
(It's time I had some time alone.)"

- Lyrics from R.E.M., 1987

Flying last Tuesday, overnight from Cape Town in South Africa to London, I read in the Financial Times that Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas was quoted as saying (this is from memory, so it is not exact) that he had difficulty voting for a bailout plan when none of his constituents could understand the need to bail out Wall Street, didn't understand the problem, and were against spending $700 billion of taxpayer money to solve a crisis for a bunch of (rich) people who took a lot of risk and created the crisis. That is a sentiment that many of the Republican members of the House share.

As it happens, I know Joe. My office is in his congressional district. I sat on the Executive Committee for the Texas Republican Party representing much of the same district for eight years. This week, Thoughts from the Frontline will be an open letter to Joe, and through him to Congress, telling him what the real financial problem is and how it affects his district, helping explain the problem to his constituents , and explaining why he has to hold his nose with one hand and vote for a bailout with the other.

Just for the record, Joe has been in Congress for 24 years. He is the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the three most important committees and is usually considered in the top five of Republican House leadership. He is quite conservative and has been a very good and effective congressman. I have known Joe for a long time and consider him a friend. He has been my Congressman at times, depending on where they draw the line. I called his senior aide and asked him how the phone calls were going. It is at least ten to one against supporting this bill, and that is probably typical of the phones all across this country. People are angry, and with real justification. And watching the debates, it reminds us that one should never look at how sausages and laws are made. It is a very messy process.

I think what follows is as good a way as any to explain the crisis we are facing this weekend. This letter will print out a little longer, because there are a lot of charts, but the word length is about the same. Let's jump right in.

It's the End of the World As We Know It

Dear Joe,

I understand your reluctance to vote for a bill that 90% of the people who voted for you are against. That is generally not good politics. They don't understand why taxpayers should spend $700 billion to bail out rich guys on Wall Street who are now in trouble. And if I only got my information from local papers and news sources, I would probably agree. But the media (apart from CNBC) has simply not gotten this story right. It is not just a crisis on Wall Street. Left unchecked, this will morph within a few weeks to a crisis on Main Street. What I want to do is describe the nature of the crisis, how this problem will come home to your district, and what has to be done to avert a true, full-blown depression, where the ultimate cost will be far higher to the taxpayers than $700 billion. And let me say that my mail is not running at 10 to 1 against, but it is really high. I am probably going to make a lot of my regular readers mad, but they need to hear what is really happening on the front lines of the financial world.

First, let's stop calling this a bailout plan. It is not. It is an economic stabilization plan. Run properly, it might even make the taxpayers some money. If it is not enacted very soon (Monday would be fine), the losses to businesses and investors and homeowners all over the US (and the world) will be enormous. Unemployment will jump to rates approaching 10%, at a minimum. How did all this come to pass? Why is it so dire? Let's rewind the tape a bit.

We all know about the subprime crisis. That's part of the problem, as banks and institutions are now having to write off a lot of bad loans. The second part of the problem is a little more complex. Because we were running a huge trade deficit, countries all over the world were selling us goods and taking our dollars. They in turn invested those excess dollars in US bonds, helping to drive down interest rates. It became easy to borrow money at low rates. Banks, and what Paul McCulley properly called the Shadow Banking System, used that ability to borrow and dramatically leverage up those bad loans (when everyone thought they were good), as it seemed like easy money. They created off-balance-sheet vehicles called Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) and put loans and other debt into them. They then borrowed money on the short-term commercial paper market to fund the SIVs and made as profit the difference between the low short-term rates of commercial paper and the higher long-term rates on the loans in the SIV. And if a little leverage was good, why not use a lot of leverage and make even more money? Everyone knew these were AAA-rated securities.

And then the music stopped. It became evident that some of these SIVs contained subprime debt and other risky loans. Investors stopped buying the commercial paper of these SIVs. Large banks were basically forced to take the loans and other debt in the SIVs back onto their balance sheets last summer as the credit crisis started. Because of a new accounting rule (called FASB 157), banks had to mark their illiquid investments to the most recent market price of a similar security that actually had a trade. Over $500 billion has been written off so far, with credible estimates that there might be another $500 billion to go. That means these large banks have to get more capital, and it also means they have less to lend. (More on the nature of these investments in a few paragraphs.)

Banks can lend to consumers and investors about 12 times their capital base. If they have to write off 20% of their capital because of losses, that means they either have to sell more equity or reduce their loan portfolios. As an example, for every $1,000 of capital, a bank can loan $12,000 (more or less). If they have to write off 20% ($200), they either have to sell stock to raise their capital back to $1,000 or reduce their loan portfolio by $2,400. Add some zeroes to that number and it gets to be huge.

And that is what is happening. At first, banks were able to raise new capital. But now, many banks are finding it very difficult to raise money, and that means they have to reduce their loan portfolios. We'll come back to this later. But now, let's look at what is happening today. Basically, the credit markets have stopped functioning. Because banks and investors and institutions are having to deleverage, that means they need to sell assets at whatever prices they can get in order to create capital to keep their loan-to-capital ratios within the regulatory limits.

Remember, part of this started when banks and investors and funds used leverage (borrowed money) to buy more assets. Now, the opposite is happening. They are having to sell assets into a market that does not have the ability to borrow money to buy them. And because the regulators require them to sell whatever they can, the prices for some of these assets are ridiculously low. Let me offer a few examples.

Today, there are many municipal bonds that were originally sold to expire 10-15 years from now. But projects finished early and the issuers wanted to pay them off. However, the bonds often have a minimum time before they can be called. So, issuers simply buy US Treasuries and put them into the bond, to be used when the bond can be called. Now, for all intents and purposes this is a US government bond which has the added value of being tax-free. I had a friend, John Woolway, send me some of the bid and ask prices for these type of bonds. One is paying two times what a normal US Treasury would pay. Another is paying 291% of a normal US Treasury. And it is tax-free! Why would anyone sell what is essentially a US treasury bond for a discount? Because they are being forced to sell, and no one is buying! The credit markets are frozen.

Last week, I wrote about a formerly AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) composed of Alt-A loans, better than subprime but less than prime. About 5% of the loans were delinquent, and there are no high-risk option ARMs in the security. It is offered at 70 cents on the dollar. If you bought that security, you would be making well over 12% on your money, and 76% of the loans in the portfolio of that security would have to default and lose over 50% of their value before you would risk even one penny. Yet the bank which is being forced to sell that loan has had to write down its value. As I wrote then, that is pricing in financial Armageddon. (You can read the full details here.)

Let's look at the following graph. It is an index of AAA-rated mortgage bonds, created by www.markit.com. It is composed of RMBSs similar to the one I described above. Institutions buy and sell this index as a way to hedge their portfolios. It is also a convenient way for an accounting firm to get a price for a mortgage-backed security in a client bank's portfolio. With the introduction of the new FASB 157 accounting rule, accountants are very aggressive about making banks mark their debt down, as they do not want to be sued if there is a problem. Notice this index shows that bonds that were initially AAA are now trading at 53 cents on the dollar, which is up from 42.5 cents two months ago.

Accountants might look at the bond I described above, look at this index, and decide to tell their clients to mark the bonds down to $.53 on the dollar. The bank is offering the bond at $.70 because it knows there is quality in the security. They are being forced to sell. And guess what? There are no buyers. An almost slam-dunk 12% total-return security with loss-coverage provisions that suggest 40% of the loans could default and lose 50% before your interest rate yields even suffered, let alone risk to your principal – and it can't find a buyer.

One of the real reasons these and thousands of other good bonds are not selling now is that there is real panic in the markets. The oldest money market fund "broke the buck" last week, because they had exposure to Lehman Brothers bonds. We are seeing massive flights of capital from money market funds, including by large institutions concerned about their capital. What are they buying? Short-term Treasury bills. Three-month Treasury bills are down to 0.84%.

It gets worse. Last week one-month Treasury bills were paying a negative 1%!!! That means some buyers were so panicked that they were willing to buy a bond for $1 that promised to pay them back only $.99 in just one month. The rate is at 0.16% today. If something is not done this weekend, it could go a lot lower over the next few days. That is panic, Joe.

I don't want to name names, as this letter goes to about 1.5 million people and I don't want to make problems for some fine banking names; but there is a silent bank run going on. There are no lines in the street, but it is a run nevertheless. It is large investment funds and corporations quietly pulling their money from some of the best banks in the country. They can do this simply by pushing a button. We are watching deposit bases fall. It does not take long. Lehman saw $400 billion go in just a few months this summer. Think about that number. Any whiff of a problem and an institution that is otherwise sound could be brought low in a matter of weeks. And the FDIC could end up with a large loss that seemed to have come from out of nowhere.

The TED Spread Flashes Trouble

There is something called the TED spread, which is the difference between three-month LIBOR (the London Inter Bank Offered Rate which is in euro dollars, also called The Euro Dollar Spread, thus TED) and three-month US Treasury bills. Three-month LIBOR is basically what banks charge each other to borrow money. Many mortgages and investments are based on various periods of LIBOR. Look at the chart below. Typically the TED spread is 50 basis points (0.50%) or less. When it spikes up, it is evidence of distress in the financial markets. The last time the TED spread was as high as it is now was right before the market crash of 1987. This is a weekly chart, which does not capture tonight's (Friday) change, which would make it look even worse. Quite literally, the TED spread is screaming panic.

The Fed has lowered rates to 2%. Typically, three-month LIBOR tracks pretty close to whatever the Fed funds rate is. Starting with the credit crisis last year, that began to change. Look at the chart below.

Remember, LIBOR is what banks charge to each other to make loans. Lower rates are supposed to help banks improve their capital and their ability to make loans at lower interest rates to businesses and consumers. Look at what has happened in the past few weeks, in the chart above. The spread between three-month LIBOR and the Fed funds rate is almost 200 basis points, or 2%! That is something that defies imagination to market observers. On the chart above, it looks like it has not moved that much, but in the trading desks of banks all over the world it is a heart-pounding, scare-you-to-death move. The chart below reflects what traders have seen in the past two weeks, and it moved up more today.

Now let's look at the next chart. This is the amount of Tier 1 commercial paper issued. This is the life blood of the business world. This is how many large and medium-sized businesses finance their day-to-day operations. The total amount of commercial paper issued is down about 15% from a year ago, with half of that drop coming in the last few weeks. Quite literally, the economic body is hemorrhaging. Unless something is done, businesses all over the US are going to wake up in a few weeks and find they simply cannot transact business as usual. This is going to put a real crimp in all sorts of business we think of as being very far from Wall Street.

I could go on. Credit spreads on high-yield bonds that many of our best high-growth businesses use to finance their growth are blowing out to levels which make it impossible for the companies to come to the market for new funds. And that is even if they could find investors in this market! There are lots of other examples (solid corporate loans selling at big discounts, asset-backed securities at discounts, etc.), but you get the idea. Suffice it to say that the current climate in the financial market is the worst since the 1930s. But how does a crisis in the financial markets affect businesses and families in Arlington, Texas, where my office and half of your district is?

The Transmission Mechanism

The transmission in a car takes energy from the engine and transfers it to the wheels. Let's talk about how the transmission mechanism of the economy works.

Let's start with our friend Dave Moritz down the street. He needs financing to be able to sell an automobile. To get those loans at good prices, an auto maker has to be able to borrow money and make the loans to Dave's customers. But if something does not stop the bleeding, it is going to get very expensive for GM to get money to make loans. That will make his cars more expensive to consumers. Cheap loans with small down payments are the life blood of the auto selling business. That is going to change dramatically unless something is done to stabilize the markets.

Credit card debt is typically packaged and sold to investors like pension funds and insurance companies. But in today's environment, that credit card debt is going to have to pay a much higher price in order to find a buyer. That means higher interest rates. Further, because most of the large issuers of credit cards are struggling with their leverage, they are reducing the amount of credit card debt they will give their card holders. If they continue to have to write down mortgages on their books because of mark-to-market rules which price assets at the last fire-sale price, it will mean even more shrinkage in available credit.

Try and sell a home above the loan limits of Fannie and Freddie today with a nonconforming jumbo loan. Try and find one that does not have very high rates, because many lenders who normally do them simply cannot afford to keep them on their balance sheets. And a subprime mortgage? Forget about it. This is going to get even worse if the financial markets melt down.

We are in a recession. Unemployment is going to rise to well over 6%. Consumer spending is going to slow. This is an environment which normally means it is tougher for small businesses and consumers to get financing in any event. Congress or the Fed cannot repeal the business cycle. There are always going to be recessions. And we always get through them, because we have a dynamic economy that figures out how to get things moving again.

Recessions are part of the normal business cycle. But it takes a major policy mistake by Congress or the Fed to create a depression. Allowing the credit markets to freeze would count as a major policy mistake.

I have been on record for some time that the economy will go through a normal recession and a slow recovery, what I call a Muddle Through Economy. This week I met with executives of one of the larger hedge funds in the world. They challenged me on my Muddle Through stance. And I had to admit that my Muddle Through scenario is at risk if Congress does not act to stabilize the credit markets.

Let's Make a Deal

Why do we need this Stabilization Plan? Why can't the regular capital markets handle it? The reason is that the problem is simply too big for the market to deal with. It requires massive amounts of patient, long-term money to solve the problem. And the only source for that would be the US government.

There is no reason for the taxpayer to lose money. Warren Buffett, Bill Gross of PIMCO, and my friend Andy Kessler have all said this could be done without the taxpayer losing money, and perhaps could even make a profit. As noted above, these bonds could be bought at market prices that would actually make a long-term buyer a profit. Put someone like Bill Gross in charge and let him make sure the taxpayers are buying value. This would re-liquefy the banks and help get their capital ratios back in line.

Why are banks not lending to each other? Because they don't know what kind of assets are on each other's books. There is simply no trust. The Fed has had to step in and loan out hundreds of billions of dollars in order to keep the financial markets from collapsing. If you allow the banks to sell their impaired assets at a market-clearing fair price (not at the original price), then once the landscape is cleared, banks will decide they can start trusting each other. The commercial paper market will come back. Credit spreads will come down. Banks will be able to stabilize their loan portfolios and start lending again.

Again, the US government is the only entity with enough size and patience to act. We do not have to bail out Wall Street. They will still take large losses on their securities, just not as large a loss as they are now facing in a credit market that is frozen. As noted above, there are many securities that are being marked down and sold far below a rational price.

If we act now, we will start to see securitization of mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and business loans so that the economy can begin to function properly.

What happens if we walk away? Within a few weeks at most, financial markets will freeze even more. We will see electronic runs on major banks, and the FDIC will have more problems than you can possibly imagine. The TED spread and LIBOR will get much worse. Businesses which use the short-term commercial paper markets will start having problems rolling over their paper, forcing them to make difficult cuts in spending and employment. Larger businesses will find it more difficult to get loans and credit. That will have effects on down the economic food chain. Jim Cramer estimated today that without a plan of some type, we could see the Dow drop to 8300. That is as good a guess as any. It could be worse. Home valuations and sales will drop even further.

The average voter? They will see stock market investments off another 25% at the least. Home prices will go down even more. Consumer spending will drop. What should be a run-of-the-mill recession becomes a deep recession or soft depression. Yes, that may be worst-case scenario. But that is the risk I think we take with inaction.

A properly constructed Stabilization Plan hopefully avoids the worst-case scenario. It should ultimately not cost the taxpayer much, and maybe even return a profit. The AIG rescue that Paulson arranged is an example of how to do it right. My bet is that the taxpayer is going to make a real profit on this deal. We got 80% of AIG, with what is now a loan paying the taxpayer over 12%, plus almost $2 billion in upfront fees for doing the loan. That is not a bailout. That is a business deal that sounds like it was done by Mack the Knife.

This deal needs to be done by Monday. Every day we wait will see more and more money fly out the doors of the banks, putting the FDIC at ever greater risk. Panic will start to set in, moving to ever smaller banks. Frankly, we are at the point where we need to consider raising the FDIC limits for all deposits for a period of time, until the Stabilization Plan quells the panic.

I understand that this is a really, really bad idea according classical free-market economic theory. You know me; I am as free market as it comes. But I also know that without immediate action a lot of people are really going to be hurt. Unemployment is not a good thing. Losses on your home and investments hurt. It is all nice and well to talk about theories and contend the market should be allowed to sort itself out; and if we have a deep recession, then that is what is needed. But the risk we take is not a deep recession but a soft depression. The consequences of inaction are simply unthinkable.

Joe, I am telling you that the markets are screaming panic. Yes, Senator Richard Shelby has his 200 economists saying this is a bad deal. But they are ivory tower kibitzers who have never sat at a trading desk. They have never tried to put a loan deal together or had to worry about commercial paper markets collapsing. I am talking daily with the people on the desks who are seeing what is really happening. Shelby's economists are armchair generals far from the front lines. I am talking to the foot soldiers who are on the front lines.

Every sign of potential disaster is there. You and the rest of the House have to act. It has to be bipartisan. This should not be about politics (even though Barney Frank keeps talking bipartisan and then taking partisan shots, but I guess he just can't help himself). It should be about doing the right thing for our country and the world. I know it will not be fun coming back to the district. Talking about TED spreads and LIBOR will not do much to assuage voters who are angry. But it is the right thing to do. And I will be glad to come to the town hall meeting with you and help if you like.

With your help, we will get through this. In a few years, things will be back to normal and we can all have stories to tell to our grandkids about how we lived through interesting times. But right now we have to act.

Colorado, California, London, and Sweden

It is time to hit the send button. This was personally a great week. For whatever reason, I did not suffer jet lag flying to South Africa for just two days, then overnight to London, and back the next day. It was a good trip. I will report more about South Africa in a later letter, but this e-letter is already a little long.

I leave Sunday for a quick trip to Longmont, Colorado (near Boulder) to look at a very interesting technology company (InPhase) that makes holographic memory disks, with good friend Dr. Bart Stuck of Signal Lake Partners.

I will be in San Diego and Orange County the 16^th and 17^th of October for back-to-back speeches, then I leave Sunday for London for two days and then on to Sweden for a conference and speeches there, a quick trip to Malta, and then back home, where I will be chained to my desk by daughter Tiffani as we do interviews and write a book.

I do enjoy traveling from time to time, seeing the rest of the world. One of my secret pleasures is reading International Living and thinking about what it would be like to have another home somewhere. Cheap thrills. You can subscribe if you like by following this link.

Have a great week. I fully believe (OK, deeply hope) that Congress will act. We can all breathe a collective sigh when they do.

Your still believing in Muddle Through analyst,

John Mauldin

Betting on Financial Armageddon

John Mauldin — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:40:00 GMT

Pricing in Financial Armageddon
Inside a RMBS
Ratings to Collateral to Ratings: A Vicious Cycle
This Too Shall Pass
South Africa, Boulder and Stand Up to Cancer

My Dad used to tell me there is no accounting for standards when looking at something that seemed odd. Today, we have faulty standards for accounting that are ripping apart the fabric of the world's economy. How can a security that has a high probability of full repayment be downgraded from AA to junk levels? What we will explore today tell us a lot about why we are in the crisis state of affairs. Since I wrote you last Friday, the financial landscape of the world has changed even more. And what will happen this weekend will change it even more. And our kids will be paying for it for a long, long time. At the end I offer a few thoughts on the events, and if there is time my thoughts on the new short covering rules. All in all, it should make for an instructive and interesting letter. We'll jump right in with no "but first."

I was invited to an invitation only presentation to a room of chief executives of a number of small Texas banks made by Rich Berg of Performance Trust Capital Partners this week (http://ptcp.performancetrust.com). He graciously gave me permission to go over the main points of his presentation. I think you will find it eye-opening to say the least. You probably have seen Rich, as he is all over the media lately.

Let's jump back 18 months. I spent several letters going over how subprime mortgages were sold and then securitized. Let's quickly review. Huge Investment Bank (HIB) would encourage mortgage banks all over the country to make home loans, often providing the capital, and then HIB would purchase these loans and package them into large securities called Residential Mortgage Backed Securities or RMBS. They would take loans from different mortgage banks and different regions. They generally grouped the loans together as to their initial quality as in prime mortgages, ALT-A and the now infamous subprime mortgages. They also grouped together second lien loans, which were the loans generally made to get 100% financing or cash-out financing as home owners borrowed against the equity in their homes.

Typically, a RMBS would be sliced into anywhere from 5 to 15 different pieces called tranches. They would go to the ratings agencies, who would give them a series of ratings on the various tranches, and who actually had a hand in saying what the size of each tranche could be. The top or senior level tranche had the rights to get paid back first in the event there was a problem with some of the underlying loans. That tranche was typically rated AAA. Then the next tranche would be rated AA and so on down to junk level. The lowest level was called the equity level, and this lowest level would take the first losses. For that risk, they also got any residual funds if everyone paid. The lower levels paid very high yields for the risk they took.

Then, since it was hard to sell some of the lower levels of these securities, HIB would take a lot of the lower level tranches and put them into another security called a Collateralized Debt Obligation or CDO. And yes, they sliced them up into tranches and went to the rating agencies and got them rated. The highest tranche was typically again AAA. Through the alchemy of finance, HIB took subprime mortgages and turned 96% (give or take a few points depending on the CDO) of them into AAA bonds. At the time, I compared it with taking nuclear waste and turning it into gold. Clever trick when you can do it, and everyone, from mortgage broker to investment bankers was paid handsomely to dance at the party.

Will we ever forget Charlie Prince's line, the CEO of Citigroup, saying that "As long as they are playing music, you have to get up and dance?" just a few weeks before the market imploded? Apart from having his rhythm being proven totally horrendous and overseeing an implosion which cost Citigroup tens of billions, it was a great statement of the zeitgeist of the financial world at the time.

The key word here is model. The ratings agencies used data supplied by the investment banks on what the likely default rates would be. It was something like taking an open book test where you get to write the questions. And since home values had only gone up, default rates were low. And of course, the data was from an ear when bankers lent money actually expecting to get paid back.

Inside a RMBS

Let's look at a RMBS. As Berg points out, when you are buying a mortgage backed security, there are really only three questions you need to know the answers to:

How many mortgages will default?
How much will I get back on a defaulted loan?
How much credit enhancement is there in the security?

Let's set the table by looking at a few terms and definitions. Using his example, let's take a mortgage where the home was originally appraised for $400,000 and there is a $300,000 mortgage on the home. Let's assume a default and the bank takes back the home. If they sell the home and recover $240,000 that means they lose $60,000. This is called a 20% severity. If they sold and recovered $150,000 it would be said to have a 50% severity.

Next, let's look at how the rating agencies come up with the AAA rating. First they model the expected losses, with emphasis on the word model. If they figure that worst case that 8% of the loans default at a severity of 50%, then the security would lose 4% of its value. To get an AAA rating you have to have at least two times the coverage of the "modeled" loss. In this illustration, that means that 92% of the loans would be put into the AAA tranche. An A rating assumes a coverage of more than 1 times but less than 2. B means you expect to get your money back and if they model that you will get below 100% back then the rating would be at junk levels.

Now, this next fact is important. All ratings assume a par value of 100. The rating of these bonds has nothing to do with price. After the presentation, Rich sat down with me and pulled up an actual mortgage backed security that was being offered that day on his screen. It was once a AAA rated Alt-A security. If I remember correctly it was a 2006 vintage security.

As of the latest reporting, a little over 5% of the mortgages were over 60 days past due or in foreclosure. In this security, there are no toxic option ARMS. The numbers of mortgages in this security that are in trouble are rising. S&P has downgraded that AAA tranche to BBB, which of course means its value is going down.

And sure enough, the offered price of the security is 70 cents on the dollar, or 70% of the original par value. Now remember, this particular AAA bond will only start to lose money after the lower tranches take up the first 8% of losses. Thus, this bond can be said to have an 8% credit enhancement.

Pricing in Financial Armageddon

Now, let's stress test that loan. For the AAA portion of the loan to lose money, that would mean that 16% of the loans would have to default with a severity of 50% losses. Could that happen? Sure.

But let's look at what buying that loan at 70 cents on the dollar does for the new owner. First, you are getting a much higher yield (interest rate) because you are buying the security at a lower valuation. But something else even more interesting happens.

Even though the security sold at 70 cents, it still gets all of the first of the proceeds of the home owners who pay their mortgages, up to 92% of the original value in the security. How many loans would have to default in order to make the buyer at 70 cents lose money? Remember, we already had credit enhancement of 8%. But at 70 cents, we just "bought" or priced in another 30%. Let's think Armageddon and that 50% of the mortgages default and they only recover 50% of the loans. That would only be a total loss of 25% to the entire collateral of the deal, but it would mean that the new investor still get all of my 70 cents plus another 13% back! The proud new owner could get up to 92% of the monies paid. Even in a pretty bad scenario, you get more than you paid for the security.

Let's walk through the math. Let's say the original security was $100 million (which would be a very small RMBS). The AAA tranche would have cost $92 billion. If you have it at 70 cents on the dollar you paid approximately $64 billion. In my Armageddon scenario above, the security loses 25% or $250 million. The lower rated tranches are completely wiped out losing $8 billion. Your tranche loses the remaining $17 billion which means you get $75 billion and you only paid $64 billion.

So, how bad would things have to get to lose money on this security? If I am doing the math right, 72% of the loans would have to default with a severity of 50% before your investment of $64 billion was impaired by even so much as 1 dollar. If that happened, it would be Armageddon.

So, why is it rated BBB? Because the rating is over the entire tranche and it is made at a par price of 100. The rating is not affected by the current price. As of today, assuming that even double the number of mortgages currently delinquent default with a 50% severity, your returns over the life of the security would be well over 12%. You would get back $92 million for your $64 billion dollar investment along with interest payments.

The reason this presentation was being made to banks and institutions? Because if you are a bank, you can generally only get prime plus 2% on a loan you make. But if you buy this security with your capital, you can make prime plus 6%. That is a large difference to a bank. Performance Trust has sold billions of this type of paper to banks and institutions.

If this is such a good deal, then why isn't everyone hitting the bid? Because these securities are very difficult to analyze. It is time consuming. You need to analyze every loan and develop your own valuations. You simply can't trust the ratings, as they are measuring something completely different.

And the real truth is that many of the various RMBS securities will in fact be totally wiped out or lose a great deal. Many are seeing default rates of 30% or more. You have to be very careful when you walk through this minefield. And in a time of crisis, it is not clear what the new rules will be. What if the government forces lenders to re-set mortgages at some loss level? What if the housing crisis gets worse? On the other hand, what if the government comes in and buys up all the bad mortgages in an attempt to stop the erosion in the home markets. The level of uncertainty in these times makes people a lot more cautious.

There are Alt-A RMBS like the one mentioned above that are probably not worth even 70 cents on the dollar. These things are marked to a market that is frozen. Everything gets lumped into the same basket and it all has to be marked to market by the new accounting rules called FASB 157. The institution selling the above mentioned security is being forced to do so, either because they are in financial trouble or they are not allowed to hold BBB securities in their portfolios and by law are required to sell. And in times of crisis, the selling price is not that of normal times.

Ratings to Collateral to Ratings: A Vicious Cycle

What's a recipe for a perfect financial storm? Let's make a massive amount of bad loans and get them on the books of most of the major financial institutions because they are rated investment grade. Then let's have the loans start to go bad. Throw in some general panic as everyone tries to sell the loans. No one is buying.

Let's make a new rule that you have to mark your illiquid securities to the last price paid by someone desperate to sell. That means that many institutions now have to mark their capital down and that means those pesky rating agencies must by their own rules mark down the ratings of the institutions which of course means that it costs them more to raise capital at a time when they can't get it which means they get lower ratings and so on. It becomes a vicious cycle.

In the early 80's, every major US bank was bankrupt because they had loaned Latin American countries far more than their capital they had on their books. The Latin American countries defaulted. If the US banks had been forced to mark to market, they would have all gone down taking the US economy along with them. So, the Fed simply allowed them to carry the loans at book value, offering liquidity and allowing the banks to buy time to make enough money to eventually write off the loans.

The current mark to market rule, while nice in theory, works in normal times. But it has the unintended consequence of making things worse in crisis times. Why should an institution have to write down a security which over time is going to pay back the lion's share or more of its value just because a severely stressed institution was forced to sell that security at a very low price in a time of crisis?

Yes, there needs to be transparency and we as investors need to know what is on the books of the companies that we invest in. But it is somewhat like my bank asking me to mark to market my home and pricing my loan daily based on that new price. If my neighbor loses his job and sells his home at auction, does that mean my home is now worth less two years from now. Maybe an even better analogy, if I am renting that home to a very good tenant, does my neighbor's price impair my income?

I was, and am, a fan of mark to market pricing. But we need to think through what a market price is. Not all things can be easily marked to market. This is doubly true when "market price" is a nebulous index of mortgage securities which may or not have a fundamental relationship with an illiquid security on the books of an institution which has no intention of selling, especially in a time of credit crisis.

It is one thing to require that you mark your stocks or bonds to market values. It is another thing entirely to require all mortgage backed securities, which are extremely complex things, can be very different one from another and which require a lot of time and effort to value, to be priced as though they are all the same.

FASB 157 needs to be amended this week. If Congress can create a new Resolution Trust Corp in a week, the surely the accounting board, with the suggestion of Treasury, can figure out a better way to price illiquid securities.

This Too Shall Pass

I know that you probably are reeling from all that has happened the past few months and especially the past two weeks. Lehman and Mother Merrill gone? We the people own AIG? Fannie and Freddie? A new housing bailout which will cost hundreds of billions? The Fed creating whole new programs to provide liquidity? Did you notice they loaned some $250 billion this last week to banks all over the world? Stopping short selling?

Want to see in graph form how bad it got and what spooked Paulson, Bernanke and company to act so quickly? Look at these graphs from my friends at Casey Research (http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/crpSolo.php?id=119&ppref=JMD119ED0908A). 30 day commercial paper went to 5% from 3% a week ago. The market was literally freezing. And the amount of paper issued is in free fall. Commercial paper is the life blood of the financial and business world. Without it commerce will soon grind to a halt.

It simply takes your breathe away. As President Bush said today, it does not help to find who is at fault today, we have to figure out how to get out of this mess. It is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. While I think the losses on AIG will be rather minor in the grand scheme of things, if you add up Fannie and Freddie and a new RTC, coupled with the stimulus package, you can easily get to $500 billion, and that is probably a low number.

For such a price, we had better get a new regulatory scheme which requires reduced leverage. Want to get really mad? Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down.

As Barry Ritholtz wrote: "So while the SEC runs around reinstating short selling rules, and clueless pension fund managers mindlessly point to the wrong issue, we learn that it was the SEC who was in large part responsible for the reckless leverage that led to the current crisis." (Don't get me started on blaming the short sellers. Let's not blame the people who leveraged up their companies 40 to 1 with bad investments.)

We absolutely must move credit default swaps to a regulated exchange, no matter how much investment banks and hedge funds scream. Must be done. Do it now. Real rules about writing mortgages, although now that losses are in the hundreds of billions, underwriting rules are already becoming quite restrictive.

And while we are at it, a thorough revamping of the rating agencies and the rules they use should be at the top of someone's list.

South Africa, Boulder and Stand Up to Cancer

It is time to hit the send button. Chuck Butler of Everbank and Thomas Fischer of Jyske Bank just walked into the office to watch the Texas Rangers play Anaheim from my balcony (which is inside the Ballpark where the Rangers play). That would be baseball to those not from the states. Chuck is a huge baseball fan and when I heard he was going to be in town I had to have him come, even on a writing day.

Everbank is known for letting clients open CDs denominated in scores of different currencies. If you are interested in diversifying away from the dollar, you can go to Everbank.com. Or call EverBank at 800-926-4922.

Chuck has had some very serious cancer, and has been going through lots of chemo. He just told me that his latest scan shows him 100% cancer free, and he is going off the chemo. Sometimes good things do happen to good guys.

And speaking of cancer, Stand Up to Cancer is a charity formed to raise money to find cures for cancer and fund innovative new therapies and research. SU2C is going to make a difference in how cancer research is conducted over the next five years, with its focus on targeted treatments that interrupt the mechanisms of uncontrolled cell growth. This is the kind of emphasis that can make cancer into a disease patients live with, rather than one they die from (sort of like AIDS has become for most of its victims in developed countries). You can and should see the program broadcast live a few weeks ago on most major networks. And then send money. Their web site, with tons of information is http://www.standup2cancer.org/ and the TV show is at http://www.nbc.com/Movies_Specials_More/Stand_Up_To_Cancer/video/episodes/.

I leave for Cape Town in South Africa tomorrow morning. I will be speaking at the ABSIP (Association for Black Securities & Investment Professionals) Annual Conference in Cape Town on September 23. Then that evening I fly to London for meetings with my partners and clients there and fly back to Dallas on Thursday. I hope to be able to keep up with what is going on and write the letter next Friday. And then Sunday I fly to Boulder to meet with Dr. Bart Stuck and learn about a company called InPhase which is making holographic memory. Pretty cutting edge stuff.

I mention this because it is companies like InPhase, and a thousand more like them, which will power the next big wave of change. The crisis on Wall Street will pass and the world will continue to change. I think it is going to change for the better for most people.

The game ahs started, so I think I am going to find an adult beverage and really, truly celebrate with Chuck, who was on the road when he got the news. I know he will be celebrating with his family when he gets home.

Your not looking forward to a 15 hour flight analyst,

John Mauldin

Housing: Are We Near the Bottom?

John Mauldin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:12:30 GMT

The Headwinds to Growing Your Wealth
The Wealth of Nations
Housing: Are We at the Bottom?
Alt-A is the New Subprime
3.5 million Unemployed and Counting
La Jolla, South Africa and London

This week we look at the housing market in some detail. When can we expect it to turn around? Part of the problem is a new wave of foreclosures is coming due, and this time it is not subprime. And that means more problems for the large financial companies. Also, as predicted here, consumer spending is taking a hit as consumers are finding it increasingly difficult to get credit and a deteriorating labor market hits total spending. There are some very interesting details in the data that was released this week. And we take a quick peek at the outlook for inflation. What is in the pipeline, so to speak? It should make for an interesting letter.

But first, it is finally time to make a very special announcement. Readers are aware that we have been asking you to take a survey on your financial and personality profiles. We are grateful for your response. Tiffani said that she has that nervous/excited feeling right before a long anticipated moment that makes your heart race a little faster. In early summer of next year, we will be releasing our first book written together to be called "Eavesdropping on Millionaires."

The data we are getting is simply amazing. I have seen nothing like it. And to make it more than just a book of numbers, over the next few months Tiffani and I will spend countless hours interviewing millionaires about their personal journeys, philosophies, investments, business successes and woes, lessons learned, families and lifestyle. We have had over 1,000 millionaires (net of their homes) and counting volunteer for the interview. This is the fun part! Listening and exchanging life stories with other people has to be one of the most satisfying and connecting joys of our lives. We plan on doing a series of books, so these interviews will go on for the next year, at the very least.

As you know, I consider my readers to be above par in their insightful feedback (good or critical) and intelligence. Tiffani agrees and we want to know, if you could sit in a room with these millionaires and ask anything, what would you would want to ask?

Please send any and all suggestions to us at EU@2000wave.com. And I mean anything, no question is too generic or outlandish for us to consider.

Not only have we had over 1,000 requests for interviews, we have had over 7,000 millionaires (so far) take our extensive survey out of a total of 16,342, with over 25% coming from outside the US. We have not been able to find a survey done in the past ten years with even half that number! (If you know of any surveys or articles that you think we might have missed, send those along to the above email as well.)

Let me tell you how fascinating it is to start digging into this data. We are comparing our data with other books, surveys and articles we are researching, not only confirming things we already know but, now, we are finding new and important information.

If you haven't taken the survey yet and want to participate in this research (and we want everyone to take it as you don't have to be a millionaire, if you are reading this you can take it), please visit: http://survey.frontlinethoughts.com/index.php?sid=12431&lang=en

The Headwinds to Growing Your Wealth

One thing that I find interesting in our research will help me illustrate a very important point I have made in the past few months, and that is the difficult headwinds that people are going to have in their efforts to grow the investment portfolios.

In the Millionaire Next Door, written in 1996, approximately 3.5 million households in America (out of a total 100 million households) had a net worth of $1 million or more. Millionaire households accounted for nearly half of all the private wealth in America.

During the ten-year period from 1996 through 2005, the authors projected the wealth held by American households to grow nearly six times faster than the household population. Quoting: "By the year 2005 the total net worth of American households will be 27.7 trillion or more than 20 percent higher than in 1996."

As it turns out, the numbers are far better. Today there are 9.2 million households worth more than $1 million, not including the value of their primary residence. The net worth is almost double their estimate. However, the numbers of new millionaires grew by 21% in 2004, 11% in 2005, 8% in 2006 and 2% in 2007. Can you see a trend here?

In fact, this year it may even reverse. If you go the Federal Reserve data, you find that US national net worth has dropped by over $2 trillion in the two quarters ended last March (that is the latest data). Given the continued drop in home prices and the stock market, it is likely those losses will mount. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf)

Now, it is not all bad news. We still have total assets of $70 trillion against liabilities of $14.5 trillion. However, much of that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, and the real imbalance is in lower income households. And cash savings are rising at a healthy pace for a change.

The Wealth of Nations

Now, let's review a few factors as to why I think it is going to be harder to get that millionaire status over the next decade than it has been in the past. From 1981 to 2006, our national wealth in terms of the houses we own, stocks we own, real estate, bonds, businesses - everything - our net national wealth (or maybe it's better to say, the prices we put on our assets) grew from $10 trillion to $57 trillion. Over very long periods of time national wealth is by definition a mean-reversion machine. Over 40 or 50 years national wealth has to revert to the growth in nominal GDP. That's just the way the economics and the math work out.

Basically, the principle is that trees cannot grow to the sky. Just as total corporate profits cannot grow faster than the overall economy over long periods of time, neither can national wealth. Think of Japan. At one point in 1989, relatively small areas of Tokyo were worth more than the total real estate of California. And then the bubble burst and Japanese national wealth decreased and grew much less than GDP and is now in line with the long-term nominal growth of GDP.

In the US, long-term growth of nominal GDP is about 5.5 percent. We've actually grown by 7.2 percent for the last 25 years. To revert to the mean means that over the next 15 years, maybe more, we're going to see nominal wealth grow between 2.5 and 3 percent. That's a major headwind and a major dislocation from the experience that we've had. Investors have been expecting to get the past 25 years to repeat themselves. The laws of economics suggest that cannot be the case.

We have seen a monster growth in equities in terms of total market cap, even given the flat growth of the last ten years. We all know about the housing market.

I have written extensively about how stock market valuations are mean reverting. We have a long way for valuations in terms of Price to Earnings Ratio to get to the mean, and typically (as in almost always) we see P/E ratios drop far below the mean. It is hard to see portfolio increases in such a mean reversion period. We are also watching housing values come down (see more below). What we are going to see is a very difficult period for asset growth in precisely the two areas where investors tend to concentrate their portfolios: US stocks and housing. Using history as our guide, that period could last for another 5-7 years. That is why I keep suggesting you look for alternatives to traditional stock market allocations.

Housing: Are We at the Bottom?

The short answer is no, but let's look at the data from one of the most knowledgeable sources on that topic. John Burns of John Burns Real Estate Consulting consults with over 2000 of the largest banks and homebuilders in the country (his client list is a who's who of banks, builders, and hedge funds). He has a reputation for solid research and pulling no punches. Some of his hedge fund clients were the ones you read about who made billions. (He wishes he had negotiated a percentage!) He is deeply involved in analyzing trends in the housing market. His web site is www.realestateconsulting.com. He has graciously sent me the executive summary of his latest posting (a 27 page executive summary) that we will be looking at for the next few pages.

Let's start with a quote from John at the beginning of his report: "The prospects for the U.S. housing market have changed for the worse. It has become increasingly clear that the U.S. economy is on the brink of recession, as overall job growth has slowed to zero and retailers are reporting abysmal results. New home sales, traffic and pricing are all heading down according to the results of our survey of over 300 builder executives. Resale [existing home] sales are starting to plateau in some markets, but pricing continues to fall as distressed sales dominate the market. The new housing bill will help in some ways, but will first serve a devastating blow to homebuilders, with the elimination of seller-funded down payment assistance, which accounts for 17% of new home demand by one estimate."

How far along are we? Burns thinks that home prices will drop by 22%, 12% which has already occurred. His analysis differs from that of the Case-Shiller Indices, which suggests a much steeper decline. Note in the graph below that the Case-Shiller Index shows home prices rising more than does Burn's work. Part of it is different methodology and part of it is the CS index focuses on major markets and Burns work is more broadly based.

However you slice it, there has been a lot of pain. Shiller's work shows home prices in the areas he measure to be down about 17%. He said last week that he does not think it unlikely that we sill see home prices drop by as much as 30%, or about the same as during the Depression of the 30s. Burns see less of a drop, but from not as high a point, so they both end up close to the same end point.

The graph above shows Burns' projection for the next few years. He thinks it will be 2011 before housing prices begin to turn back up on a nationwide basis, with national prices continuing to fall into 2010. That will not sit well with the pundits who keep telling us each month that we have seen the bottom.

For the difference in his numbers with Case-Shiller, he offers the following explanation: "The Case-Shiller national number, which is a "paired sales" analysis, showed much more price appreciation than other indices based on median prices. We suspect that there was a shift in the mix of homes sold to lower priced homes in 2006 due to subprime lending, which depressed the median value and showed large % increases in the paired sales index."

Sales volumes are suffering. "We believe sales volumes have already fallen back to 1995 levels and will hit 1992 levels sometime next year, when they will begin to slowly rebound later in the year. We are already seeing rebounds in some of the hardest hit markets, such as Southern California, where sales fell to below the levels of the early 1990s. The rebound in sales will be driven by foreclosure buying activity and demand from real households that need to move for personal reasons and have been delaying their purchase for fear of further price corrections. Our 8% per year projected [starting in 2010] increase doesn't get us back to normal sales volumes until after 2012, and that is because the tremendous excesses of this cycle moved many renters into homeownership earlier than usual, and allowed existing homeowners to "move up" to their dream home earlier than usual. Conservative mortgage lending will also prevent a sharp turnaround."

On a more optimistic note, he thinks new home prices, which started to correct much earlier than existing home prices, should bottom out in 2009, although some particularly overbuilt areas will suffer longer. We are actually close to a bottom in new home construction, and he thinks we will be back to 900,000 new homes by 2012. But that is a far cry from the 1.68 million in 2005, but is also a sustainable number.

There is a problem though, and that is the recently enacted housing bill eliminated seller-funded down payments, and this was 17% of new home sales. Watch for a rise in the number of new homes sold in September, as the new law does not take effect until October. Home builders will be telling people to buy now before this ability to help with the down payment goes away. But cheerleaders on TV will be telling us the market has turned. They won't be saying that in November.

Alt-A is the New Subprime

By now, everyone in the world is aware of how bad the subprime mortgage business was. But now it is time to get ready to hear the same tale, told again, about Alt-A mortgages. Alt-A mortgages are mortgages made to borrowers with better credit scores than subprime borrowers, but could not or decided not to document their income. One estimate is that 70% of Alt-A borrowers may have exaggerated their incomes (Wholesale Access). More than half to those were people who exaggerated their incomes by 50% or more! (Mortgage Asset Research Institute)

How much are we talking about? Around 3 million US borrowers have Alt-A mortgages totaling $1 trillion, compared with $855 billion of subprime loans outstanding. $400 billion of that was sold in 2006. Almost 16% of securitized Alt-A loans issued since January 2006 are at least 60 days late. Many of these loans (around $270 billion) were interest only or with a low teaser rate, and the resets were at 3 and 5 year lengths. These are called Option Arms. That means starting next year we are going to see a wave of mortgages re-setting to new rates. And it is no modest increase. Rates can jump as much as 4-8% or more from teaser rates. Some Option ARMs are re-setting at 12.25%. That can double a payment.

Wachovia and Washington Mutual were big sellers of Alt-A loans, and had $122 billion and $53 billion, respectively, on their books at the end of the second quarter. Is it any wonder that their stocks are under pressure? That is why bit is so hard to quantify how much more write-offs there will be. You don't write down a mortgage until it starts to develop problems. These problems may not show up for a few years. I continue to stress I do not want to own a financial stock that has exposure to mortgage paper. Write downs are going to continue to come for a long time.

This means there will be a steady wave of foreclosures for the next two years in communities all over the US. As long as these homes keep coming onto the market, they are going to exert downward pressure on prices. Foreclosure sales are up by 109 from this time last year.

3.5 million Unemployed and Counting

The number of people receiving unemployment benefits jumped to 3.525 million, the highest level since 2003. My friend and Chief Economist John Silvia at Wachovia forecasts that unemployment will rise to 6.7% in 2009 (from 5.5% today) and above 7% in 2010. Given the inability of US consumers to borrow against their homes, with rising unemployment, is it any wonder that consumer spending data released this morning showed retail sales dropping 0.3% in August, for the second month in a row (July was down 0.5%)? Excluding automobiles, sales dropped 0.7% in August, the most this year.

Look at the chart from Greg Weldon (www.weldononline.com). As he notes, retail sales are posting their worst reading since the last recession.

Prices at the wholesale level actually fell. Silvia thinks the consumer price index will be in the neighborhood of 2%. Right now, a lot of people think that sounds crazy, but I agree. First, remember that CPI measures changes over the last 12 months. As an example, look at the oil price chart below. Starting next spring, unless energy prices rise a lot, we are going to see year over year comparisons for energy prices that will be negative. If oil drops to $80, which it very well could, that would have the affect of decreasing inflation next summer, by a significant amount. And given that Europe and Japan are in a recession, and emerging markets have reduced the demand because of high prices, thinking that oil in the short term could be lower is not unreasonable. (Long term I think oil will go MUCH higher, but that is another story.) A 40% reduction in gas prices from their peak is not out of the question. That would impact inflation by pulling it down.

You can make the same case for a lot of commodities and some of the food complex as well. Year over year comparisons in a few quarters are going to start to look good. In absolute terms looking back a few years, it will still feel like inflation, but the numbers don't have feelings.

With Europe and Great Britain central banks likely to cut rates, the dollar is going to get stronger (as predicted here long ago). That will also help hold inflation down. Consumer spending is going to continue to be under pressure, which will not be good for stocks, which means that those facing retirement are going to have to save more and spend less. I think this time next year we will start to see stories about deflation. I know, call me crazy, but given that we have seen two major bubbles burst in the last year (housing and credit), it is not out of the realm of reason. It is what SHOULD happen. Bursting bubbles are by definition deflationary events.

Within a few quarters the Fed will not be under pressure to raise rates, especially with rising unemployment and what is clearly an economy on the ropes. Further, banks need lower rates in order to re-liquify. Home buyers will need lower rates as well. I think, as I have written for a long time, that the Fed is on hold for a very long time. And I am not sanguine that the next move will be a rate hike. This time next year when inflation is seen as yesterday's problem and unemployment is rising, the drums may be pounding for a rate cut. We live in interesting times.

La Jolla, South Africa and London

Next Monday Tiffani and I get on a plane, assuming the hurricane is out of town by then and fly to La Jolla to be with Jon Sundt and the team at my US partner Altegris Investments, coming back Tuesday. Then next Friday Chuck Butler from Everbank and Thomas Fischer from Jyske Bank and a crew from the Sovereign Wealth Society are going to show up at my office to watch a Texas Rangers game. Chuck is a huge baseball fan and he is always fun to be around.

Then Saturday morning I fly to South Africa for a speech the next Tuesday. I will be speaking at the ABSIP (Association for Black Securities & Investment Professionals) Annual Conference in Cape Town on September 23. To obtain more information, contact my Spouth African partner Prieur du Plessis through the contact facility on the Investment Postcards from Cape Town blog.

That night I fly to London and spend the day there with my Niels Jensen and his team at my London partners Absolute Return Partners. We will be meeting with clients and I have some time available there. Contact me and I will put you I touch with them.

There are a lot of things happening in the alternative investment world, and I try and stay on top of them. If you are interested in looking at hedge funds, commodity funds and other alternative funds, go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and sign up and I will have one of my partners contact you and show you what is "behind curtain #3". (I am president and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC., member FINRA.)

My travel and writing schedule is pretty rough right now. When I get back I have a trip to Europe in Mid-October (Sweden, Malta, London, maybe the Mid-East) and then I am coming home for awhile to catch up and finish the book with Tiffani and try to get my own book, way past due, finished as well.

I am going to hit the send button a little early so I can make sure everything is ready for Ike to show up tomorrow. We are 250 miles inland (Dallas), but they are expecting some bad weather and the real problem here will be that the conditions will be perfect for tornadoes. It should be an interesting weekend. Right now the weather is perfect, but in 24 hours it will be very wet. The real problems will be in Houston and Galveston. I wish my fellow Texans well.

I see some time to stay home and read science fiction in my near future. Enjoy your weekend, wherever you are.

Your hoping it does not get that bad analyst,

John Mauldin

$1.6 Trillion in Losses and Counting

John Mauldin — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:13:00 GMT

$1.6 Trillion in Losses and Counting
Banks Start to Reduce Their Lending
Take Freddie Mac. Please.
The Ugly Muddle Through
Once Again, the BLS Numbers Paint a False Picture
Las Vegas, Maine, and a Wedding

It seems that with each passing month the estimates for losses in the international banking system keep rising. This time last summer the largest estimates (from credible sources), if memory serves me correct, were around $400 billion, give or take a few months. By the end of the year it was in the neighborhood of twice that. Then last quarter we saw estimates approaching $1 trillion. Last week, the number being broached was $1.6 trillion, by Bridgewater Associates, one of the top, and more credible, analytical firms in the world. In this week's letter we look at the implications of that projection, analyze recent lending patterns by banks, briefly touch on the implications of the recent unemployment numbers, and end with a few comments on the bear market. It will make for an interesting letter. Warning: remove sharp objects from your vicinity before reading.

But first, I need your help, and in return I would like to give you a link to a recent speech I gave, where I speak about what I think is the development of an important new asset class, one which will come about precisely because of the problems I am writing abut today. I have not yet written about this topic in public, and the speech has been well-received. I think you will like it. Now, as to how you can help me ...

I get to travel a lot with my daughter and business partner Tiffani (actually she runs the business) and meet new people. Over the years, she has become as fascinated as I have with their individual stories. Everyone has a story to tell or a lesson to teach. We have decided to write a book about those stories, looking at the differences in perspective between old and young, retired and working, those who are wealthy and those who aspire to wealth. What are the differences in attitudes, in work habits, in how you manage money, in how you look at the future, and a score of other items? How do all of these things correlate?

We have created a totally anonymous online survey seeking answers to these questions and more. We hope to get at least 10,000 people to fill out the survey; and we are eager to see what we find as we pore over the resulting data and engage in a lot of in-depth analysis. Are the rich really different? Is there a difference in people from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the US? I think we will find some very interesting information. Please note: this is not just a survey for millionaires. We want everyone, of all income levels and ages, to take the survey, so we can get a true representative sample.

You can get to the survey page by clicking here. It will take about ten minutes to complete, and I think that going through the questions will make you think about your own situation. Some have told us the survey is quite thought-provoking. If you have attempted to take the survey and had problems, we think we have worked out the bugs.

At the end of the survey, you will be sent to a page with the speech. If you cannot listen to it immediately, then simply save the page or the address. And of course, you can just take the survey to help us.

Also, Tiffani and I want to do live (mostly by phone) interviews with 200 millionaires, of all shapes and sizes and locales. We will interview you for about 30 minutes, and then you can have equal time asking me anything you want. Since I will have learned a lot about you, those questions can be as detailed or as general as you like. We want at least 20% of the interviews to come from outside the US. We will use those interviews in the book, but will attach no identifying items or real names. If we use something from your interview in the book, we will let you see it first. If you are interested in being one of the interviewees, just drop Tiffani a note at eu@2000wave.com and she will get back to you and work out the details.

I am really excited about this project and even more so about working with Tiffani. We will report back to you on what we find. Thanks for your help.

$1.6 Trillion in Losses and Counting

One of the great privileges I have is getting to read a wide variety of economic research. While I get a lot of material direct from the source, I also have a wide network of people who read other sources and send me what they think is important. When Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote this week about a report done by Bridgewater Associates, it got my attention, and fortunately this report was sent to me by a few friends. In my book, Bridgewater is one of the top analytical groups in the world. I pay attention and give strong credence to what they write. And this report is quite sobering.

First, let's look at what Evans-Pritchard wrote in the London Telegraph:

"Bridgewater Associates has issued an apocalyptic warning to clients that bank losses from the worldwide credit crisis may reach $1,600bn [$1.6 trillion], four times official estimates and enough to pose a grave risk to the financial system.

"The giant US hedge fund said that it doubted whether lenders would be able to shoulder the full losses, disguised until now by 'mark-to-model' methods of valuing structured credit.

" 'We are facing an avalanche of bad assets. We have big doubts as to whether financial institutions will be able to obtain enough new capital to cover their losses. The credit crisis is going to get worse,' said the group in a confidential report, leaked to the Swiss newspaper Sonntags Zeitung.

"Bank losses on this scale would have far-reaching effects. Lenders would have to curtail loans by roughly 10-to-one to preserve their capital ratios. This would imply a further contraction of credit by up to $12,000bn [$12 trillion] worldwide unless banks could raise fresh capital."

Let's look at some of the details in the report. First, these losses are not all subprime. In fact, more than half of it is from corporate liabilities, around $800 billion. About $550 billion of the corporate losses have yet to be written off. As an example, Bridgewater estimates losses on commercial loans to be as much as $149 billion, none of which has been written off.

Better than 90% of the losses from subprime assets that are on the books have already been written off. That is good. But Bridgewater estimates that there are losses lurking in the prime and Alt-A loan portfolios that could be much bigger than the subprime problems, as those loan books are more than six times the size of the subprime. Quoting:

"The US commercial banks are in a position to suffer the greatest losses, because the core of their portfolio is risky US debt assets. In order to get a sense of their expected losses we examine both their loan book and their securities portfolio and price each type of asset out based upon a reference market. If we use this current market pricing as a guide, there is a long way to go, as these institutions have only acknowledged about 1/6 of the expected losses that they will incur as a result of the credit crisis."

I could go on, but the details are not important. The bottom line is that they estimate there is at least another $1.1 trillion of losses that will have to be written off by institutions all over the developed world, including very large potential write-offs from insurance companies.

Banks and investment institutions worldwide may need another $400 billion in capital infusions. But where they are going to get it is the problem. They have burned through the usual suspects, and burned is the correct word. Any sovereign wealth fund or large investor who has put money into an investment or commercial bank has watched their investment take large losses in a very short time. How likely are they to be willing to belly back up to the bar with more money, on anything except very dilutive terms to current shareholders? The answer is obvious.

And let me be clear. There are some very large commercial and investment banks which are simply going to be absorbed, as regulators move to keep the entire system working. Bear Stearns is not a one-off deal. I think it is likely we will see at least one European bank nationalized. Losses the size that Bridgewater describes are beyond ugly. They are life-threatening for more than one major institution. More on this later.

Banks Start to Reduce Their Lending

Further, let's revisit a theme I have written about on several occasions over the past year. As banks incur losses, they either have to find new capital or reduce their lending in order to maintain their capital ratios, or some combination of both. And what we are seeing is that lending is starting to actually decrease.

Earlier this year lending rose as normal, even though anecdotal reports told of tightening lending standards and reduced loan lines. The tightening of standards did not seem to be affecting actual loans being made, which was odd. But this was partly illusion, as banks were taking back loans they had spun off in SIVs, taking capital away from their traditional loan business. This gave the appearance of expanding loan capacity. Evidently, this bringing back of off-book loans is now being worked through, as evidenced by this analysis by good friend and analyst par excellence Greg Weldon, who slices and dices the data to give us this view (www.weldononline.com):

"[looking at the chart below] ... FOR SURE, the recent decline strongly suggests that the risk of a US recession has intensified CONSIDERABLY, as defined by what amounts to one of the largest nominal credit contractions in DECADES, at (-) $154.3 billion, and a clear-cut violation of the uptrend in place since at least 2001."

Greg goes on to suggest that bank credit could contract a further $6-700 billion over the next nine months, which is a contraction of about 8%. Healthy economies have a rising rate of bank credit, which is one source of expansion. When banks have to reduce their lending, it reduces the growth of the economy or can put it into outright recession.

And if the Bridgewater report is anything close to right, Greg is being an optimist, which is not his normal milieu. Now, do I think worldwide credit will shrink $12 trillion, as Evans-Pritchard suggests? (Note, that was not a suggestion or conclusion by Bridgewater.) Not in my worst nightmares. Capital will be raised, and the various central banks of the world will do what is necessary to give banks the time to work through their problems.

But in the meantime, the trend toward lower lending is likely to continue. And lower lending is going to be a huge headwind for an economy that is already struggling.

This week Ben Bernanke suggested that the "temporary" Term Auction Facility might be extended into 2009. Let me suggest that it will be extended into at least 2010 before it is no longer needed. Banks are going to need to be able to take their illiquid paper and convert it into liquid Treasuries against which they can make loans and continue to function.

As I have written for a long time, it is all about buying time. In 1980, every major bank in the US was technically bankrupt, as they all had large amounts of Latin American bonds in their portfolios, at a size far larger than their capitalization. When the Latin American countries started to default, if the Fed had made the banks mark their portfolios to market, it would have been a disaster of biblical proportions. There would have been no American banks left standing. The US economy would have gone into a deep depression.

Instead, with a wink and nod, they let them keep the bad bonds on their books at face value, which they all did. Then in the latter part of the decade, starting with Citibank in 1986 (cue the irony), they began one by one to write off the bad loans, but only when they had enough capital to do so. It took six years (or more) of profits and capital raising to get to where they could deal with the problems without imploding themselves and the economy of the US at the same time.

Today is only different in the details. The Fed and central banks around the world are allowing banks to buy time to work through their problems. There really is no other option. That extra $1.1 trillion that the research by Bridgewater says will have to be written off? You can take it to the bank, pardon the pun, that it will not be written off this quarter. This is going to be an ongoing process that will take several years at a minimum. Just like in 1980, the regulators are going to allow banks to write down their losses as they can, except in the most egregious of circumstances, in which case those banks will be "absorbed," a la Bear Stearns.

Treasury Secretary Paulson said Thursday that no bank is too big to fail. That is for public consumption. The fact is that there are any number of banks that are too big to fail, depending upon (and borrowing from my favorite linguist, Bill Clinton) what your definition of fail is. If by fail you mean that shareholders are wiped out, then he is correct, there is no institution too big to fail. If by fail you mean that the operations and debt obligations will be allowed to collapse, then there are institutions whose collapse would pose major systemic risk to the world markets. They cannot be allowed to collapse.

Take Freddie Mac. Please.

(Cue Henny Youngman) Take Freddie Mac. Please. Its shares are down almost 90%. "Freddie Mac owed $5.2 billion more than its assets were worth in the first quarter, making it insolvent under fair-value accounting rules. The fair value of Fannie Mae [down 78%] assets fell 66 percent to $12.2 billion, data provided by the Washington-based company show, and may be negative next quarter, former St. Louis Federal Reserve President William Poole said." (Bloomberg) Poole asserted that these institutions are essentially on a short path to insolvency.

But in the same story, Senators Schumer and McCain both said Freddie and Fannie would not be allowed to fail. Even curmudgeonly former Fed Vice-Chairman Wayne Angell (someone whom I sincerely respect), said on CNBC yesterday that the government regulator of the GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) ought to get some money from Congress to buy preferred stock and then get even larger amounts from the public through an offering of preferred stock. He said that Congress ought to learn about its responsibilities with regard to a GSE; and the public ought to realize that we are in for a long, tough fight. (He also expects the second half of 2008 to be no better than the first half, and he sees 1% growth in 2009.)

I wrote the above paragraph, and a few I deleted below, on Thursday, as I am on a plane to Las Vegas and need to finish the letter in order to attend a conference. I wrote with suggestions about how a collapse of the two Government Sponsored Enterprises might be handled. Last night, the New York Times broke a story that government officials are looking at how to go about taking over operations at Freddie and Fannie, should worse come to worst. Then this morning, the Wall Street Journal in its lead story elaborated on this theme.

The basic problem is that both Fannie and Freddie need more capital, and perhaps far more than their current market capitalization. Where to find it? What investor wants to try and catch this falling safe, without government guarantees? The Journal article quotes numerous people with various ideas about what to do. Most of their ideas will potentially cost US taxpayers.

And make no mistake. The problems with Fannie and Freddie have to be solved. They are now doing 80% of the mortgages in the US. Without them the housing market would grind to a halt quickly and housing prices would drop even beyond Gary Shilling's pessimistic views.

Not to mention that the world has assumed the implicit backing of the government in buying the paper of Freddie and Fannie. How easy would it be to finance US debt if this paper was allowed to default? The implications are serious. I understand the arguments for allowing them to fail, and I think shareholders should bear the risk they take on when buying equity.

A very reasonable idea was broached by Steve Forbes on a BizRadio program this afternoon, which Dan Frishberg graciously allowed me to co-host. He suggests breaking Fannie and Freddie into eight smaller companies, giving them whatever backing they need in the form of public financing to start business, and then cut them off to sink or swim on their own, with much tighter capitalization controls. Remember, this is one of the more free-market conservative thinkers.

The authorities are slowly losing control. All they can do is crisis manage. There are no good solutions, only expedient ones. And we must all hope they choose the best among a handful of not particularly pleasing options. Allowing the system to devolve into chaos is not an option. The Fed and whatever administration comes in will do the same as the current group, which is to buy time so that the wounds can heal, and hopefully put in place rules to prevent another such occurrence.

(Sidebar: I will go into greater detail in a later letter, but regulators need to move NOW to create a Credit Default Swaps Exchange. A problem/crisis in that unregulated market is actually a far bigger problem than the current subprime crisis. Why do you think Bear Stearns was not allowed to go into bankruptcy? There are banks that are too big to fail, despite what Paulson says for public consumption.)

There are a lot of conflicting opinions, which you can read at www.bloomberg.com if you care. Some say Fannie and Freddie will have to lose $70 billion before the regulators step in. Poole says they are insolvent now, using fair market accounting methods. I don't know, and neither do 99.9 % of the shareholders. At this point Fannie and Freddie are not an investment, they are a gamble. Sitting here at Caesar's in Vegas, and reading the opinions, makes me think I have better odds at the tables below me.

I hope that when (not if!) taxpayer money is used, it is at market rates and means that shareholders are last in line, if at all, to recoup any money. For those of us who for years have called for tighter regulation and increased capitalization of the GSEs, as well as a clear removal of any government backing, implicit or explicit, being able to say "I told you so" does not feel all that good. Freddie and Fannie cannot be allowed to go out of existence. They are too tightly wound into the core and fiber of the US economy.

What can and should happen is that shareholders bear their losses, taxpayers pick up the bill, and when they are healthy again, as they will be at some point, another public offering should be done to hopefully recoup the losses to taxpayers. Or perhaps an auction with some guarantees to a potential buyer, but a complete removal of implicit government guarantees on future loans, and higher capitalization requirements. There are any numbers of ways to lessen the ultimate cost to the taxpayer.

What I fear is that politicians will use the opportunity to prop up the mortgage markets with taxpayer guarantees and create much larger losses, which could quickly mount into the hundreds of billions if not properly dealt with. A new populist-oriented administration could find this problem on their desk as they take office.

I would not want to own any stock in the financial sector. There is going to be a continual stream of write-offs over the coming year, at a minimum. Yes, some banks are better managed and will avoid the real life-threatening problems. Some will be like JP Morgan and end up with solid assets backed by government guarantees.

But which ones? Do you want to trust the analysts that have been telling you there is value in the financials at each step, all the way down? The management who insists they are in good shape, then raises capital at dilutive prices? The very people who did not see the problems to begin with, telling you that they are now solved?

The "value" that analysts optimistically see in various financial stocks is evaporating with each quarter, as they slowly write down ever more losses. With another potential $1 trillion to be written off or absorbed through earnings from profitable parts of the business, there is more pain to come. Investing in financials today is like trying to catch a falling safe.

The Ugly Muddle Through

Goldman Sachs published a report Thursday in which they suggest the most probable scenario for the next 12 months is GDP growth between -0.25% and 0.25%, or basically zero. Wayne Angell, mentioned above, expects the second half of '08 to be no better than the first half and for GDP growth to be 1%.

In the Bridgewater report mentioned above, they estimate that the net worth of US-based assets is down about 13% since January 2007, a total loss of almost $8 trillion. This is hitting pension plans, corporations, and consumers, making them think twice about planned investments and expenditures.

Earnings estimates are being cut with each passing month. The P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is currently at a sporty 23. Historically, in times of rising inflation, the stock market goes through "multiple compression." That means P/E ratios fall more than earnings. If multiples fell just 20%, back to 18, which is still above long-term trends, the market would see another 20% drop from here. Even with earnings growth, the market is going to have a challenge rising in the current environment.

Sidebar: A number of you have written questioning my source for the P/E ratio, as you read or hear different numbers from what I write. You can indeed find estimates of forward P/E ratios as low as 12 a year from now. That is a lot different than the 23 I cited above.

There are two basic types of earnings that are reported. One is "operating earnings," or what I call EBBS, or Earnings Before Bad Stuff. Then there is "reported earnings," which is what the corporations report on their tax forms. Not all that long ago, in the mid-'90s, operating earnings and reported earnings were generally in line with each other. Companies would deduct genuine one-time, unusual losses from their reported earnings to give us operating earnings. And such a system has a valid basis for existence. If something is truly one-time, maybe an investor should overlook it when evaluating the company's potential.

But then the media and analysts started using the operating earnings as the primary number, and companies began to game the system. More and more items were considered one-time. One of the more egregious examples was when Waste Management Systems declared that painting the garbage trucks was a one-time extraordinary expenditure and should be accounted as such. Today the difference between as-reported and operating earnings can be 20-40% or more! It seems there are many losses that management assures us are just one-time items.

Standard and Poor's has a web page where you can see a spreadsheet of historical data and projections for both types of earnings. That is the source of my data. It is at http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xls/index/SP500EPSEST.XLS?GXHC_gx_session_id_=5350992f205e73e4& .

Analysts' estimates do tend to get brighter the further out one looks on the table. But if the growth scenarios mentioned above come about, and banks have to curtail all sorts of lending, the earnings projections are going to be way too high, as they have been for the last 12 months. That is going to mean more pain for the stock market.

I think it is quite likely we see the Dow slip below 11,000. (Ok, I wrote that Thursday!) As I said on Kudlow the other night, another 10% drop in the market would take us only to the average bear market. A "9 handle" on the Dow seems quite possible, if not likely. (Note: when someone says "a 9 handle," they mean that the first number in the index or stock price is a 9. The first number is the handle.) The risk is to the downside, given the tepid potential growth of the economy.

Once Again, the BLS Numbers Paint a False Picture

I almost get tired of writing this each month, but it is important, and I will do it quickly. The unemployment number from the BLS last week showed a loss of 62,000 jobs. Private sector jobs were off by 91,000, with the government showing growth of 29,000.

But once again, the birth/death ratio of estimated new jobs was 177,000. As The Liscio Report noted: "... without the b/d's contribution, private employment would have been down by something like 268,000. It added 29,000 [new jobs] to construction, 22,000 to professional and business services, and 86,000 to leisure and hospitality. Given the weakness of the economy and the crunchiness of credit, we doubt that there are enough startups around to match these imputations."

Revisions to the prior two months were a negative 52,000. When they do the final numbers a few years from now, we will find that the revisions will be in the hundreds of thousands for the first half of the year. We have now had five consecutive months of downward revisions, which is typical of recessions.

Unemployment held steady at 5.5%, but that masks an underlying and growing problem. There has been a huge increase in the number of people working "part-time for economic reasons" and a large number of people who are discouraged and not looking for a job but would like one. These two categories are not counted as unemployed. If you add them into the equation, the unemployment or underemployment number goes to 10.3%! (per Greg Weldon)

As I warned above, this has not made for pleasant reading. But it is reality, and we need to deal with it.

And let me say that even given the above, I am a long-term (and even mid-term) optimist. We have to work through some serious problems, but we will. Valuations are going to be low once again, and it will be time to become bullish. And researching and writing my book on how the world will change in 20 years makes me very optimistic. No one in 20 years will think of today as the "good old days." The changes that are in front of us will be amazing. So, simply take a deep breath, be conservative today, and get ready for a really wild and fun ride.

And speaking of investment banks, I need an introduction to someone who is deeply involved in the creation of Exchange-Traded Notes. Drop me a line.

Las Vegas, Maine, and a Wedding

I am at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, and want to hit the send button so I can attend the sessions and see a lot of old friends. I really think it will be good fun. I have dinner with Frank Holmes of US Global tonight, and look forward to it. Frank is the consummate gentleman and always very interesting.

And speaking of dinner, I was with Barry Ritholtz (of Big Picture fame) last week, and we agreed we are psyched about going to Maine at the end of the month for David Kotok's annual fishing extravaganza. Lots of good friends, wine, and conversation - and I will get to collect on at least one of the group bets we made last year predicting markets, etc. And I was way wrong, but everyone else was even more wrong. Go figure. I will tell you all the details after the trip.

Daughter Tiffani's wedding is getting closer. 08-08-08. Less than a month, and a lot of coordination to be done. It is at the point where I am sitting in on meetings. Flowers cost what? Fireworks? Credit lines are being squeezed. But it is going to be so much fun!

Remember, the markets are not where you live. If your investments keep you up at night, sell until you can sleep. Life is to be enjoyed, and I am doing my part. So have fun this week! And call some friends and share a few laughs.

Your wishing he could be a bull analyst,

John Mauldin

Thoughts on the Continuing Crisis

John Mauldin — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:51:46 GMT

Thoughts on the Continuing Crisis Margin Clerks of the World, Unite! Where Do We Find New Sources of Credit? In Defense of Alan Greenspan What Now for Gold, Oil, Etc? Baseball, Mexico, and Travel Costs My essay in Outside the Box last Monday seemed to...(read more)

Muddle Through and Your Long Term Returns

John Mauldin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:28:39 GMT

Muddle Through Gets A Boost Honey, I Vaporized My Customers Consumer Spending is Going, Going...South The Boomers Break the Deal Today we drop back to take a look at the economy and its long term effect on our portfolio returns. I am in Orlando this week...(read more)

Sea Change at the Fed

John Mauldin — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:12:00 GMT

Sea Change at the Fed "Of his bones are coral made: Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade, But doth suffer a sea change Into something rich and strange" (The Tempest - Shakespeare) The term "sea change"...(read more)

Should the Fed Cut Interest Rates?

John Mauldin — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:10:00 GMT

Should the Fed Cut Interest Rates? The Shocker in the Employment Numbers Should the Federal Reserve Cut Interest Rates? Will A Cut Make Any Difference? How Housing Woes Hurt the Rest of the Economy Home Again, Home Again The unemployment numbers came...(read more)

The Panic of 2007

John Mauldin — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:08:00 GMT

The Panic of 2007 Muddle Through or End of the World? An Alphabet Soup of Credit Turning Nuclear Waste Into Gold (and Back Again!) Mrs. Watanabe and the Hedge Fund Connection The Rating Agency Blame Game Where Do We Go From Here? Hedge Funds to the Rescue...(read more)

The Fugu Ultimatum

John Mauldin — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:07:00 GMT

The Fugu Ultimatum In the early fall of 1998, I remember being on a flight to Bermuda from New York. I was upgraded and sat next to a very distinguished looking gentleman. He was going to a conference about re-insurance and I was going to speak at a large...(read more)

The Subprime Virus

John Mauldin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:05:00 GMT

The Subprime Virus The Subprime Virus 2007 Mid-Year Forecast Compete With the Pros When the Facts Change Credit? What Credit? global Warming, Maine and San Antonio As predicted in this letter early this year, the credit markets have finally begun to tighten...(read more)

Fun in the Subprime Summer

John Mauldin — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:04:00 GMT

Fun in the Subprime Summer Hot Fun In The Summertime Collateralized Loan Obligations The Economic Outlook for Leveraged Credits The New Mickey Mouse Club Planes, Trains and Automobiles This week I am already in Maine and getting ready for a weekend of...(read more)

Where is the Real Risk in the Subprime Debacle?

John Mauldin — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:02:00 GMT

Introduction This week we continue to look at an alphabet soup of problems: RMBSs, CDOs, Alt-A, BBB and - a new acronym to put on your radar screen - the very useful CDS. When does an AAA rating not mean an offering is ready for prime time? What type...(read more)

$250 Billion in Subprime Losses?

John Mauldin — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:59:00 GMT

$250 Billion in Subprime Losses? Is the subprime mortgage market collapsing before our eyes, or did we avoid a disaster as Bear Stearns stepped up to the plate with $3.2 billion to help its ailing funds? As we will see from the data, the problems in the...(read more)

All Subprime, All the Time

John Mauldin — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:33:00 GMT

Introduction At the risk of being all subprime, all the time, this week we look at what I think are the real risks for the economy as a result of the subprime debacle. How can one side say it is a contained risk (and in one sense it is) and not a problem...(read more)