|
The following is the joke that is not funny, currently playing out in a country
very near you. Please read "The
Doo Doo 32, revisited" and "The
FDIC as a catalyst, or the new Doo Doo 32!" to bring you up to speed on
my opinion of the banks. "Green
Shoots are Being Fertilized by Brown Turds in the Mortgage Markets" offers
some empirical data to back up these articles, then move on the banking comedy
currently being played out in the courts. Let me warn you upfront, this post
is packed with both poignant opinion (not eveybody is going to like it) and
well researched, empirical fact about failed and failing banks.
There
is significant risk in smaller, lesser known banks as well. We
have screened almost 1,000 publicly traded banks to cull the weak ones into
a new Doo Doo list. Trust me, there is more to choose from than one
may think. In an attempt to recreate a new list of banks that are at extreme
risk of failure, and have publicly traded shares available for shorting, we
have screened nearly 1,000 publicly traded prospects for strength, asset quality
and solvency. We then shortlisted 25 banks, and of the 25 banks shortlisted
we further analyzed the banks in each bucket of risk used to create the list
(loan performance and quality, securities inventory depreciation, income and
operations). Of the 16 banks in the 1st category we had selected 8 banks with
the largest negative cushion to loan losses and had compared them by culling
out data from their latest FDIC call report and have performed a trend analysis
(for the last four quarters). In aggregate we had short-listed 4 banks in the
1st category, just the first pass! We have dozens more banks to go (subscribers
may download this shortlist here:
Doo
Doo shortlist - August 27, 2009 2009-08-28 01:07:22 (191.05 Kb).
Aug. 27 (Bloomberg)
-- The Federal Reserve argued yesterday that identifying the financial institutions
thatbenefited from its emergency loans would harm the companies and render
the central bank's planned appeal of a court ruling moot. This
is abject nonsense. What hurts banks is what ultimately hurts banking product
consumers, and that is the secrecy, fraud, and mispresentation that has been
the recent changes in accounting rules that allow banks to outright lie about
the trouble their assets are in. What hurts the banks are the myriad secrets
kept from the public, primarily the ones concerning the heatlh of the banks
in the first place. I will start (by the end of this blog post) revealing those
banks that are either about to be shut down by the FDIC or very well should
be (thus I strongly suggest you read this lengthy, yet informative missive).
Why should the people have to rely on a blogger for the true state of their
financial institutions and at the same time have to actually sue those who
are supposed to be safeguarding us against financial failure. If the banks
are insolvent, they should be wound down, not protected in a multi-trillion
dollar shroud of secrecy and taxpayer monies. If they are solvent, then there
is noting to hide. Bernanke et. al. and the other members of the Central Banking
establishment are not the only ones in this country that can count! The bad
part about it is, many of these banks who are swimming in trashy assets will
probably end up failing anyway, despite the many hundreds of billions of dollars
thrown at them and the illegal (as the judge below made clear) shrouds of secrecy
surrounding their repetitive bailouts. Read this article and the rest of the doo
doo series, I will start informing you of who is already insolvent, putting
creditors at risk, and who probably received the Fed assistance. That is, until
I am silenced by the government. To make matters worse, the share prices of
these companies have skyrocketed, nearly all of them - despite the fact that
their is little to negative equity in them.
The Fed's board of governors asked Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta
Preska to delay enforcement of her Aug. 24 decision that the identities
of borrowers in 11 lending programs must be made public by Aug. 31. The central
bank wants Preska to stay her order until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New
York can hear the case.
"The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board's claims
of exemption and right of appellate review," the motion said. "The institutions
whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable
harm." Just so we are clear here. The truth sill
cause irreparable harm, but concealment and lies will benefit the public????!!!!
The Fed's "ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial
crisis" would be impaired, according to the motion. It said "significant harms" could
befall the U.S. economy as well.
The central bank didn't say when it would file its appeal.
Fed lawyer Kit
Wheatley told Preska in a conference call today that she did not know
how long it would take for the Fed board to search the New York Fed for records.
"We really don't know what's in New York," Wheatley said. "We don't control
the system of record-keeping in New York." Wait a
minute, If they don't know what's in NY, then how do they know what they don't
know will cause "irreparable harm" to you know who since they are refusing
to tell anybody who that is? Oh, okay. It is all becoming clearer now!
The Standard
The Fed's lawyer went on to say that she did not know what records would fall
under a "delegated function," which would be a task assigned to the New York
Fed.
Preska interrupted Wheatley, saying that "Ms. Wheatley, I held that's not
the standard. You didn't search under the regulation. You're supposed to search
under the regulation."
Preska scheduled another conference call for 2:30 p.m. today to discuss the
schedule for a search of the New York Fed.
"Nobody is going to deny you your right to an appeal," Preska said on the
call, "We're going to do it expeditiously, not in a piecemeal fashion and hand
it all off to the Second Circuit."
The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the
amounts or the assets put up as collateral under the emergency programs, saying
disclosure might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders.
Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 under the Freedom of Information Act on behalf
of its Bloomberg News unit.
Public Interest
"Our argument is that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the banks'
interest in secrecy," said Thomas
Golden, a lawyer with New York-based Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP who
represents Bloomberg.
Preska's Aug. 24 ruling rejected the Fed's argument that the records should
remain private because they are trade secrets and would scare customers into
pulling their deposits. Being insolvent is now a
trade secret! I need to run that one the next time I get in financial trouble.
.... The Clearing House Association LLC, an industry-owned group in New York
that processes payments between banks, filed a declaration that accompanied
the request for a stay... "Experience in the banking industry has shown that
when customers and market participants hear negative rumors about a bank, negative
consequences inevitably flow," Norman
Nelson, vice president and general counsel for the group, said in the document. "Our
members have accessed the discount window with the understanding that the Fed
will not disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity."
Members of the Clearing House are ABN Amro Holding NV, Bank of America Corp.,
Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc.Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings
Plc, JPMorgan Chase Inc., UBS AG, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. I
have rich research on quite a few of these guys. See Wells
Fargo & Co focused post"Fact,
Fiction, Farce and Lies! What happened to the Bank Bears?" and
the very real potential for a $100 billion dollars of economic losses coming
out of Wells Fargo, all conveniently hidden by entities such as the "clearinghouse" and
the Fed. The actual declaration can be downloaded here:
Clearinghouse_declaration
27/08/2009,23:05 183.30 Kb, and features some comedic content of its own.
Let's take a look see.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court's Order threatens
to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the
New York Fed's Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive
harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed's Discount Window with the understanding
that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially
their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience,
has shown that negative rumors about a bank's financial condition - even
completely unfounded rumors - have caused competitive harm, including bank
runs and failures. Okay, let's parse this message
accurately, shall we? Truth and transparency runs the risk of "negative rumors" that
threaten "bank runs and failures" while secrecy, concealment and innuendo
(thre preferred method of handling banking insolvency, it appears) is what
the Fed and the "Clearing House" recommends to perpetuate the strength of,
and confidence in, the banking system?????!!!!!
Furthermore, how in the hell can anybody consider
a rumor to be unfounded if it is based on a fact or truth. Now, by not
revealing who needed help, rumors will be unfounded, but I suspect that
these entities are much less concerned with how founded a rumors is than
how damaging the truth and facts are. What say you, my loyal reader?
The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
And while Bernanke et. al. and the "Clearing House" attempt to use secrecy
to prevent rumors about who needed trillions of dollars of bailout funds for
allegedely healthy banks, another arm of our government looks like it may need
a bailout of its own, due of course, to those healthy banks that are suspect
to bank runs if the truth were to be known...
FDIC
List of Problem U.S. Banks Rises to 416, Putting Reserve Fund at Risk
The U.S. added 111 lenders to its list of "problem banks," a jump that suggests
rising bank failures may force the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to deplete
a reserve fund that shrank 40 percent this year.
A total of 416 banks with combined assets of $299.8 billion failed the FDIC's
grading system for asset quality, liquidity and earnings in the second quarter,
the most since June 1994, the Washington-based FDIC said in a report today.
Regulators didn't identify companies deemed "problem" banks.
The U.S. has taken over 81 banks this year, including Guaranty Financial
Group Inc. in Texas and Colonial BancGroup Inc. in Alabama, amid the worst
financial crisis since the Great Depression. The surge forced
regulators to charge banks an emergency fee to raise $5.6 billion for its
insurance fund, which fell to $10.4 billion as of June 30 from $13 billion
in the previous quarter, the agency said. The total was the lowest since
the savings-and-loan crisis in 1993...
An $11.6 billion increase in loss provisions for bank failures caused the
decline in the reserve fund, the FDIC said. If the fund is drained, the FDIC
has the option of tapping a line of credit at the Treasury Department that
Congress extended in May to $100 billion, with temporary borrowing authority
of $500 billion through 2010...
Bair said the number of problem banks and failures will remain elevated
as banks and thrifts continue to clean up their balance sheets. "For now,
the difficult and necessary process of recognizing loan losses and cleaning
up balance sheets continues to be reflected in the industry's bottom line," she
said. Bair should really share this thinking with
Bernanke. After all, it is necessary to clean up the balance sheet, not simply
loan trillions of dollars against it then change the accounting rules so
banks can pretend the losses do not exist. There appears to be a divergent
approach to a solution between these two.
FDIC-insured banks reported a net loss of $3.7 billion in the second quarter,
compared with a $5.5 billion gain in the first quarter. The quarterly loss,
the second the industry has reported in 18 years, was driven by increased
expenses for bad loans, the FDIC said. Funds set aside by banks to cover
loan losses rose to $66.9 billion in the second quarter from $60.9 billion
in the first quarter.
...
More than 150 publicly traded U.S. lenders own nonperforming loans that
equal 5 percent or more of their holdings, a level that former regulators
say can wipe out a bank's equity and threaten its survival, according to
data compiled by Bloomberg. Most likely due to
all of those "Green
Shoots are Being Fertilized by Brown Turds in the Mortgage Markets".
The biggest banks with nonperforming loans of at least 5 percent include
Wisconsin's Marshall & Ilsley
Corp.Flagstar
Bancorp. All said in second- quarter filings they're "well-capitalized" by
regulatory standards, which means they're considered financially sound. and
Georgia's Synovus Financial Corp., according to Bloomberg data. Among those
exceeding 10 percent, the biggest in the 50 U.S. states was Michigan's. Of
course they are. I warned of these banks risk of failure a year and a half
ago with my Doo
Doo 32 missive. Many of those banks no longer exist, while others are
showing up in Bloomberg articles a year or so later as being at risk, yet
financially sound by regulatory standards. I am warning again of a new set
of bank failures. I suggest you take heed. Do not be lulled into a false
sense of complacency merely because stock prices are rising. The guys who
trade these stock prices higher are not the ones responsible for making payments
on the poorly underwritten loan products that are driving these banks under.
As a matter of fact, the secrecy and fraudulent concealment of fact has a
direct correlation to share prices. This is why the "Clearing House" does
not want the truth to be revealed.

As promised, I will start releasing data on truly insolvent banks, and banks
that are close to insolvency. My subscribers
(click here to subscribe) get first crack at the list, but I will offer
them to the public after a lag. Since it is so aggregious that the government
actually feels they should conceal the health of the banking system from the
public, I will release some of it up front (the data that can be benefited
from an investment perspective is subscriber
only). Since I have already shared the loss potential of Wells Fargo, a
very large bank, earlier in the blog post - the cat is out of the bag on this
one. In case you missed it, here it is again: "Fact,
Fiction, Farce and Lies! What happened to the Bank Bears?". PNC Bank is
not what I would consider the strongest bank in the world either, see PNC
plus CRE = Doo Doo hitting the Fan.There are quite a few other banks trading
as high as $45 dollars that just ain't worth it.
These are large banks though. There is significant risk in smaller, lesser
known banks as well. I have screened almost 1,000
publicly traded banks to cull the weak ones into a new Doo Doo list. Trust
me, there is more to choose from than one may think. In an attempt to recreate
a new list of banks that are at extreme risk of failure, and have publicly
traded shares available for shorting, we have screened nearly 1,000 publicly
traded prospects for strength, asset quality and solvency. We then shortlisted
25 banks, and of the 25 banks shortlisted we further analyzed the banks in
each bucket of risk used to create the list (loan performance and quality,
securities inventory depreciation, income and operations). Of the 16 banks
in the 1st category we had selected 8 banks with the largest negative cushion
to loan losses and had compared them by culling out data from their latest
FDIC call report and have performed a trend analysis (for the last four quarters).
In aggregate we had short-listed 4 banks in the 1st category, just the first
pass! We have dozens more banks to go (subscribers may download this shortlist
here:
Doo
Doo shortlist - August 27, 2009 2009-08-28 01:07:22 191.05 Kb).
Take United Security Bancshares (UBFO US Equity) as an example.
This bank has weak fundamentals but it is trading at $5.1 making it extremely
risky to short. Despite that, it has negative equity from my perspective, hence
is not even worth the $5 that it is trading at. I have another bank whose summary
is available in the subscriber's download section whose negative equity situation
is twice as bad - nearly 200% negative - that I feel is even more worthless.
My assumption is that the FDIC will be taking that one, and quite likely this
one as well, down soon. Hey, it is now FDIC Friday, the day might even be today.
Who knows. Well, back to United Security Bancshares:
About 64% of the loan portfolio is real estate related, with an extreme concentration
in commercial real estate. Non accrual loans and 90 days past due loans amounts
to 87.6% of the tangible equity. High NPAs result in negative cushion (excess
of NPL+90 days due over reserve) of 62.9% of equity. Texas ratio is the highest
among the analyzed set at 103.9% and shortfall from Eyles Test (liquidity available
to fund loan losses) is 69.8% of the tangible equity.
NPAs as % of loan are 15.2% and as % of tangible equity
are 129.6% (this screams insolvency to me!)
Adjusted leverage is 11.4x.
The bank is trading at Price to tangible book value of 1.0x
I will probably post more on this bank soon, that is if it is not taken under
by the FDIC this weekend. Speaking of whom, I expect the FDIC to step to all
of the banks, or at least most of them, that I have on my new Doo Doo list.
Other links around the web from the MSM and Blogs:
|