The Markets sell the Governator Short

how-to-drink-vodka-03I was looking for just the right twist of irony sprinkled over my reality today. Bloomberg.com served it to me shaken, not stirred, with a delightful, tangy twist. Do you remember our discussions of those not so obscure derivatives called Credit Default Swaps? They’re basically the Wall Street version of a side bet. Some sucker agrees to provide a form of “insurance” that makes some entity is a better risk and some one else bets against them thinking nothing will make that entity worthwhile?

In most instances, the bet is against the holder of the entity’s bond. The holder, at some point, invested in the bond because they thought it a good investment. The investor may who holds the bond may want a little extra assurance so they enter into a swap agreement. If the bond defaults, they get a payment. However, in a lot of instances, the swap may be ‘synthetic’. That means some folks don’t actually hold the bonds or intend to buy or sell the bonds. They want to place a bet on which way the risk premium will move and pocket the difference. (That’s the extra cost associated with the bond if the market deems the bond to be risky or junk.) Okay, hopefully, that’s enough to get you situated but if you want to learn a little more here’s some information on Naked CDS from The Atlantic.

Okay, so now I want to move towards the punch line, if you will. There’s still a huge market for these things. Remember, it’s actually much bigger than the equities markets despite recent events. Here’s the fun headline from Bloomberg: Russia Beats California as Default Swaps Favor BRICs . Gosh, don’t you just hate it when you really have to explain a joke? So, BRIC is short for Brazil, Russia, India and China. So, that mean’s that the bonds of those countries are considered less likely to default than those of California. Grok on that a minute with some special consideration to Russia who defaulted not all that long ago.

Read the rest of this entry »


Business Week Declares the Winners in Health Care Reform

Business Week suggests you get to know your Insurance CEOs and I agree... UHC's Helmsley (a high flying member of the bonus class)

Business Week suggests you get to know your Insurance CEOs and I agree... UHC's Hemsley (a high flying member of the bonus class)

And guess what… it isn’t you and me. Here’s the front page story from August 6th, 2009.

The Health Insurers Have Already Won: How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

All this back and forth on rw/lw blogs about whose grass roots are nuttier or meaner or better organized is cute, but while this debate on how many wingers can fit on the tip of a town hall meeting goes on, the real health care anti-reform is happening on K Street. The circus only stops you from looking at the men behind the curtain. Not one teabagger or ACORN rent-a-protester or you or the rest of us are part of the real conversation. Shouldn’t our focus be on why the Health Insurance is happy about what’s going on? Uh, maybe while you’re all throwing memes at each other, some one should be watching the pile of money on the floor that’s disappearing before our very eyes? The Democrats have the votes to make this pass. BUT, wtf are they passing? You really think this is an obsequious foot in the door?

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.

Executives from UnitedHealth certainly showed no signs of worry on the mid-July day that Senate Democrats proposed to help pay for reform with a new tax on the insurance industry. Instead, UnitedHealth parked a shiny 18-wheeler outfitted with high-tech medical gear near the Capitol and invited members of Congress aboard. Inside the mobile diagnostic center, which enables doctors to examine distant patients via satellite television, Representative Jim Matheson didn’t disguise his wonderment. “Fascinating, fascinating,” said the Democrat from Utah. “Amazing.”

Okay, did you take a deep breath long enough to read that highlighted line? Do you realize that all we’re doing with the current format is giving these guys new customers to fleece with their 30% mark-up? Is that a good deal? That’s worth a symbolic vote for single payer and an inkle of a public option? A few more folks in 2013 join the fleecing of the ill while it’s paid for by throwing children off SCHIP and removing benefits from Medicare? Are liberals really fighting for THAT? Are conservatives thinking THAT’s socialism?

What fresh hell is this?

Read the rest of this entry »


It’s Still about the Jobs Stupid! Redux

flickrThe upward momentum in the unemployment rate seems to have abated as last month’s figure shows a statistically insignificant decrease to 9.4%. The unemployment rate itself is not the best indicator of what’s going on in the labor markets, but the changes from month-to-month give us some indication of improvement. Reuters reports that payrolls fell less in July giving some indication that things are slowly improving. This is a good indication that we may be approaching the bottommost point of the recession. The upward momentum is slowing.

Employers shed 247,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department said Friday, the least in any one month since last August, taking the unemployment rate to 9.4 percent, down from 9.5 percent in June.

“It suggests the recession will be ending before the end of the year. There isn’t any part of the economy that hasn’t shown some slowing in deterioration,” said Joe Davis, chief economist at Vanguard in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

Whenever economists teach about the job markets, we always mention that the unemployment rate should never be looked at as the sole indicator employment trends. Indeed, we alread see some discussion on the finance/econ blogs that remind us that it’s the underlying flows of people in and out of the job market as well as the rate of job creation that give us a full sense of what’s going on.

Daniel Indiviglio at The Atlantic asks Did the Unemployment Rate Really Go Down? and discusses one of the biggest bones of contention in measuring the rate itself, the discouraged worker. Discouraged workers are those people that have been unemployed and looking for work for so long that they’ve given up the search. Once you give up the search for a job, you leave the ranks of the ‘unemployed’ and you no longer count in the unemployment rate. The number of these folks becomes significant once a recession goes on for some time.

Read the rest of this entry »


It’s just a little bit of Policy Fail Repeating

bad-bank-2When you let lobbyists make public policy, failure is an acceptable outcome. That’s because the point of the policy isn’t the public and isn’t necessarily doing what will work. The point of the policy is to enrich and perpetuate the entrenched interests. Every other possible goal becomes expendable including those that have to do with protecting the public purse and welfare.

Imagine my lack of surprise when I saw that the creation of a “bad bank” policy is back in today’s WaPo headlines. Go take a look at “U.S. Considers Remaking Mortgage Giants:’Bad Bank’ Would Wipe the Slate Clean for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac by Taking Their Toxic Loans” and weep. This administration will reward bad players as long as there is a political reason for them to exist. So, instead of real reform of Fannie and Freddie, they’re proposing a solution that sweeps past mistakes under the rug and allows these failed institutions to operate in the same irresponsible way that brought them their current fate. There is no such thing as the discipline of the market or the bankruptcy court when you’re big enough to hire K Street impresarios to keep your show running and the federal government enables you.

The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip the mortgage finance giants of hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled loans and create a new structure to support the home-loan market, government officials said.

The bad debts the firms own would be placed in new government-backed financial institutions — so-called bad banks — that would take responsibility for collecting as much of the outstanding balance as possible. What would be left would be two healthy financial companies with a clean slate.

The moves would represent one of the most dramatic reorderings of the badly shattered housing finance system since District-based Fannie Mae was created by Congress to support mortgage lending during the Great Depression. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, have government charters to buy home loans from banks, which they then repackage and sell to investors. The banks can then use the proceeds to offer more loans to home buyers.

The leviathans became emblematic of the financial crisis when they were effectively nationalized in September amid a market meltdown that revealed much of their holdings to be troubled. The government has since pledged more than $1.5 trillion, including $85 billion in direct aid, to keep the mortgage market working through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The proposal, which is preliminary and one of several under discussion, is scheduled to be taken up by the White House’s National Economic Council on Thursday.

What about the Japanese lost decade and all the papers and studies written about the bad bank policy did these folks miss? Well, of course, you do know that the head of the “White House’s National Economic Council ” is La-La Summers, right? Mister, I got mine from Wall Street? Let’s look at the other players who buy into this. I’ll just highlight them so you can see that it’s basically the same players that had some kind of supporting role in the original failure. Why does Washington D.C. continue to reward the very same people and players? It has too be some thing pathological.

Read the rest of this entry »


What’s That Lassie? Little Timmy’s in the Well AGAIN?

lassie Wow, it looks like Turbo Tax Timmy has gone rogue! We better send the press up to Alaska to chase down another Palin rumor. First, there’s that nastiness over the weekend with the Stephanapolous show on ABC where he explicitly said that the administration wasn’t ruling out new taxes on the middle class. (Something Larry-the-la-la Summers also inkled, but hey, he’s not a cabinet officer, he’s something akin to a Czar that has to be overthrown by something other than scandal and public displays of stupidity.) I believe that gave Robert Gibbs Excedrin headaches number 349-357 during yesterday’s presser.

Now, there’s rumors of a temper tantrum in the presence of all the nation’s topic economists and financial regulators outlined here in the WSJ. It seems he’s not getting the Obama way on this one. The ladies in the room have taken exception to his granting Ben Bernanke (possibly later, this year, La-la Summers) all the fun and power. I guess being an independent regulator with an agency all to yourself just isn’t what it used to be; especially when you have scary lady parts and a huge brain.

Mr. Geithner told the regulators Friday that “enough is enough,” said one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Geithner said regulators had been given a chance to air their concerns, but that it was time to stop, this person said.

Among those gathered in the Treasury conference room were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

Friday’s roughly hourlong meeting was described as unusual, not only because of Mr. Geithner’s repeated use of obscenities, but because of the aggressive posture he took with officials from federal agencies generally considered independent of the White House. Mr. Geithner reminded attendees that the administration and Congress set policy, not the regulatory agencies.

Mr. Geithner, without singling out officials, raised concerns about regulators who questioned the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power to oversee the financial system. Ms. Schapiro and Ms. Bair, among others, have argued that more authority should be shared among a council of regulators.

This current turf battle is only the latest move by a group within government possibly thwarting the Treasury’s plans to continue uploading tax dollars to the bonus class in the guise of saving the financial sector. If there’s still disagreement about this point, can you imagine what other things are going on in complete disarray behind the scenes? Who is really in charge of solving this overt act of sibling rivalry? Well, if you have figured out where the buck stops in this administration, you’re doing better than me. (Hint: these folks are ALL presidential appointments).

Read the rest of this entry »