October 13, 2009
If a Bubble Bubble Bursts Off Balance Sheet, Will Anyone Be There to Hear It?
by Reggie Middleton
|
|
 |
|
One of the quandaries of running a subscription service is that when you have
some really juicy stuff, you inherently limit the audience that you are able
to reach. Normally, this isn't that big a deal. When you believe that there
is a mass cover up aiming to prop up the largest cadre of zombie, insolvent
companies in modern history it becomes a much bigger deal. This leads me to
distribute a significant amount of research for free. On that note, I have
been following the breadcrumb trail of hidden (or more aptly put, concealed)
corporate liabilities, and it has led me to (of all places) off the balance
sheet of the big banks. I have spent a lot of time concentrating on exactly
where the losses, if any, will come from in these banks. We have already established
that the smaller banks had, have and will totally drain the FDIC's insurance
fund over a year and a half ago (see As
I see it, 32 commercial banks and thrifts may see the feces hit the fan blades Friday,
23 May 2008, notice how many of the banks have went under since then) in the
post I'm
going to try not to say I told you so...
I would also like to add that I have raised the flag on this regional bank/commercial
real estate issue many months before the sell side and the main stream media
said a peep. This is not to brag or boast, for I am a fundamental investor
and the market has definitively ignored the fundamentals for 7 months running.
The point that I am trying to convey is that analysts in the big sell side
banks work for their trading desks, underwriting and sales departments, and
not for the investor (be it retail or institutional). Thus, proclamations of "Buy!
Buy! Buy!" do not necessarily mean we have entered into a fundamentally firm
area in which to buy stocks, bonds or any other risky assets covered by these
guys. For a sterling example, see The
sell side is pushing with all of their might to inflate the market....
As a matter of fact, I have also focused on those very same brokerages, banks,
insurers and REITs that went bust, starting as far back as 2007, again before
it was fashionable to do so (see Is
this the Breaking of the Bear? January 2008, GGP
and the type of investigative analysis you will not get from your brokerage
house November 2007 to December 2008, A
Super Scary Halloween Tale of 104 Basis Points Pt I & II, by Reggie Middleton circa
November 2007, etc.)
Now, that everyone feels the coast is clear and we will be entering a new
bull market amid a broad economic recovery sprouting green shoots all over
the place, I am intent on quantifying what remaining risks there are - if there
are any remaining risks I am also in the process of fine tuning the market
neutral strategy that can produce profits up until and through the period that
these banks bring the market and economy back down (see Option
Strategy Analysis Update for the strategy analysis and their performance
thus far).
This started from a re-examination of the monoline insurers (primarily Assured
Guaranty) that simply looked a bit to rosy for my eyes.
I dug in deeper, and I saw a lot of skeletons in the closet, hence I went
bone hunting. I digress... Let me start from the beginning. A user posted this
interesting link from IRA, which I will excerpt: Institutional
Risk Analytics and then lead into the next part of my thesis:
By eschewing securitization and buying banks after they have been restructured,
JPM gained a huge advantage for its equity and bond holders. BAC and WFC,
on the other hand, still face the daunting task of cleaning up the mess left
by the troubled acquisitions of Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia.
In the case of BAC, we hear that this includes buying defaulted mortgage
paper at par from the various securitization vehicles sponsored by BAC directly
or acquired from Countrywide and/or Merrill Lynch. The latter, in case you've
forgotten, was the biggest CDO sponsor on Wall Street. This one reason we
told our friends at Fast Money that we believe BAC is next in line behind
Citigroup (NYSE:C) in terms of financial problems and could be back in the
arms of the US government by the middle of 2010.
The thing that many people still don't understand about securitizations
is that it was not just overtly profitable for the sponsors. There also was
a hidden profit in many deals that were not disclosed, a profit that is now
become a liability. Consider a hypothetical example based on actual deals.
Say Countrywide created a new DE trust and contributed $100 million face
amount of loans to the entity, call it "QSPE1" for "qualifying special purpose
entity" under the FASB rules, which incidentally are scheduled to be rescinded
at the end of the year. The folks at Moody's (NYSE:MCO), S&P or Fitch
would then be paid a fee to provide a rating for the new entity prior to
the issuance of securities. We'll come back to this point in a future comment.
In return, QSPE1 gave Countrywide an IOU for $100 million and then sold
bonds to investors for at least that amount, allowing QSPE1 to repay the
IOU to Countrywide. But the dirty little secret that Wall Street still conceals
from the Congress, the public and the shareholders of all banks is that the
collateral contributed by Countrywide to QSPE1 was not worth nearly $100
million, but in some cases closer to $95 million or even less. This is why
during the interview earlier this year ("Back
to Basis for Securitization and Structured Credit: Interview With Ann Rutledge'),
Ann talked about the fact that the mezzanine tranches of many late-vintage
securitizations never converge on "AAA," unlike an auto or credit card securitization.
In plain English, this means that there is never enough collateral inside
QSPE1 to pay the investors interest and principal - without an under-the-table
subsidy from the sponsor.
For many years in the securitization sector, the fact of a secular increase
in the value of collateral masked these unsafe and unsound practices in the
banking industry. Sponsors such as Countrywide were assumed to be willing
to "cure" such defects - that is, substitute collateral in the event of a
default or advance cash to the securitization trust - in order to make sure
that the trustee in charge of QSPE1 was able to make timely payments to bond
holders. The legal fiction was that QSPE1 and Countrywide were separate entities,
but the economic reality is that QSPE1 and Countrywide are one and the same.
Click
here to see Ann's presentation from the June 10, 2009 PRMIA event, "Regulation
of Credit Default Swaps & Collateralized Debt Obligations." Look at
slides 12-16, showing various securitizations by Ford (NYSE:F) and the
last by Countrywide. Notice that while all of the F deals converge on "AAA" early,
the Countrywide deal never accumulates sufficient collateral and cash to
ensure repayment of bond investors. Only because Countrywide and other
issuers were willing to "cure" these deals with undocumented payments to
the securitization trust could investors ever be repaid. http://www.prmia.org/Chapter_Pages/Data/Files/3227_3508_PRMIA%20CDS_presentation.pdf.
After reading this I thought to myself, hmmmm. If these products really do
not converge on AAA, and Assured Guaranty has made a business on insuring what
they consider AAA, super senior tranches that they consider bullet proof, somebody
in this situation is sadly mistaken. Of course, before I go on with my findings
on Assured Guaranty, it would be prudent to reveal what I have found in the
banks that they insure and stand as counter party to, particularly in light
of what Ms. Rutlege has alleged over at IRA.
I will be detailing findings on several big banks over the next few banks,
and hopefully wind it up with a synopsis that some explains how AGO can characterize
their risks as AAA - or not.
|
Reggie
Middleton
Reggie Middleton, LLC
Perpetual Interests, LLCTM
http://boombustblog.com/
Who am I?
Well, I fancy myself the personification of the free thinking
maverick, the ultimate non-conformist as it applies to investment and analysis.
I am definitively outside the box - not your typical or stereotypical Wall
Street investor. I work out of my home, not a Manhattan office. I build my
own technology and perform my own research - in lieu of buying it or following
the crowd. I create and follow my own macro strategies and am by definition,
a contrarian to the nth degree.
Since I use my research as a tool for my own investing
to actually put food on my table, I can stand behind it as doing what it is
supposed too - educate, illustrate and elucidate. I do not sell advice, I am
not a reporter hence do not sell stories, and I do not sell research. I am
an entrepreneur who exists just outside of mainstream corporate America and
Wall Street. This allows me freedom to do things that many can not. For instance,
I pride myself on developing some of the highest quality research available,
regardless of price. No conflicts of interest, no corporate politics, no special
favors. Just the hard truth as I have found it - and believe me, my team and
I do find it! I welcome any and all to peruse my blog, use my custom hacked
collaborative social tools, read the articles, download the files, and make
a critical comparison of the opinion referencing the situation at hand and
the time stamp on the blog post to the reality both at the time of the post
and the present. Hopefully, you will be as impressed with the Boom Bust as
I am and our constituency.
I pay for significant information and data, and am well
aware of the value of quality research. I find most currently available research
lacking, in both quality and quantity. The reason why I had to create my own
research staff was due to my dissatisfaction with what was currently available
- to both individuals and institutions.
So here I am, creating my own research for my own investment
activity. What really sets my actions apart is that I offer much of what I
produce to the public without charge - free to distribute and redistribute,
as long as it is left unaltered and full attribution is given to the author
and owner. Why would I do such a thing when others easily charge 5 and 6 digits
annually for what some may consider a lesser product? It is akin to open
source analysis! My ideas and implementations are actually improved and
fine tuned when bounced off of the collective intellect of the many, in lieu
of that of the few - no matter how smart those few may believe themselves to
be.
Very recently, I have started charging for the forensics
portion of my work, which has freed up the resources to develop the site to
deliver even more research for free, particularly on the global macro and opinion
front. This move has allowed me to serve an more diverse constituency, which
now includes the institutional consumer (ie., investment turned consumer banks,
hedge funds, pensions, etc,) as well as the newbie individual investor who
is just getting started - basically the two polar opposites of the investing
spectrum. I am proud to announce major banks as paying clients, and brand new
investors who take my book recommendations and opinions on true wealth and
success to heart.
So, this is how I use my background and knowledge in new
media, distributed computing, risk management, insurance, financial engineering,
real estate, corporate valuation and financial analysis to pursue, analyze
and capitalize on global macroeconomic opportunities. I have included a more
in depth bio at the bottom of the page for those who really, really need to
know more about me.
Visit his blog Boom
Bust Blog.
Copyright © 2007-2009 Reggie Middleton
Image rendition and html coding Copyright © 2000-2009
SafeHaven.com
ADVERTISEMENTS
« Opinions expressed at SafeHaven are those of the
individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of SafeHaven
or its management. Articles are available via RSS/XML. Please
visit RSSHelp for instructions. »
|
|