Archive for December, 2008

If “Wall Street Got Drunk”, what does that say about Capitalism?

Sunday, December 21st, 2008
longhaired freaky person asked:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-wall-street-got-drunk-and-now-its-got-a-hangover-875780.html

Can we please get an economic system that doesn’t have a substance-abuse problem?

Wanda

Investment Banking and the Future of Wall Street

Saturday, December 13th, 2008
Jose Roncal asked:


The current economic meltdown has changed the face of Wall Street, possibly forever. For decades the energy in the market had been fueled by high-rolling investment bankers, but look what’s happened in the last eight months. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Bear Stearns was snapped up by JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch got bought out by Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had to convert to bank holding companies just to stay in business.  Five major investment banks . . .and then there were none. 

At the beginning of this year, those five firms had a combined market value of around $250 billion with the top firm, Goldman Sachs, valued at nearly $90 billion. Now the top banks, which are comparatively small boutique firms—Raymond James, Jefferies & Co, Greenhill & Co, Keefe Bruyette & Woods and Piper Jaffray—have a combined market value of $12 billion, a number that has shrunk by a factor of 20.

Essentially, the global economic crisis has ushered in the era of universal banking where massive financial firms offer every conceivable kind of investment product and service. Even smaller brokerage firms face being herded under the umbrellas of big banks, or else risk becoming irrelevant.

Historic Realignment of the Industry

When Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley opted to become bank holding companies it marked an historic realignment of the financial services industry and the end of a securities firm model that had prevailed on Wall Street since the Great Depression.  But why did they make the change? Partly because it’s given both firms access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window — the same line of credit that is open to other depository institutions at a lower interest rate.

As bank holding companies, they can also tap into deposits from retail customers. The two firms had already received a temporary financial lifeline from the Fed—the Primary Dealer Credit Facility—the special reserves established to bail out Wall Street broker-dealers like the Bear Stearns deal in March 2008.

Even though Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are now classified as bank holding companies and are part of the universal banking model, they’ll still be able to engage in investment banking activities. But after years of loose oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they’re now faced with tighter regulations imposed by the Federal Reserve and they are subjected to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation oversight.[1]

The Golden Years of Investment Banking

A quick historical review of investment banks will serve as a backdrop to the events that led to their downfall.

Independent investment banks have been around for a long time, but originally they were small private partnerships that earned most of their money from offering corporate finance and investment advice, as well as some broking and other services.  If you had walked into one of their offices and looked around, you might have mistaken it for a large law firm.

The success of their business model depended on the trust built through long-term relationships. There wasn’t much money at risk in the early days because the firms operated primarily with the partners’ own money.  That meant there weren’t vast sums available to gamble on risky ventures with excessive leverage. But the lack of working capital and a desire to orchestrate splashier deals, motivated the firms to go public in the late 90s.

The Downfall Begins

With more capital in the coffers and a growing access to low cost, short-term debt, managers started to make larger, riskier capital bets—most recently those troubling and toxic mortgage-backed securities.

The regulations that had once separated investment banks from traditional banks were no longer in place. That opened the way for big global banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan to start competing with Wall Street for what had traditionally been the domain of the investment banking business. This forced Wall Street firms to expand their services, to use more leverage and to take even bigger risks.

When those risks led to profits, the dealmakers were rewarded with outlandish bonuses and the wheels were set in motion for bigger risk-taking. Throw patchy government regulation into the mix and you have, as the saying goes, a recipe for disaster.

Before long, major Wall Street firms were leveraged three or four times more than conventional banks, yet they still operated under far less stringent regulations than the banks.

It wasn’t until the financial crisis reared its ugly head in mid-2008 that the U.S. Fed stepped in and for the first time, allowed investment banks access to their discounted funds. Then when the credit crisis hit, highly leveraged Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs found themselves in even deeper trouble. They’d already suffered huge losses with their hedge funds and high-risk ventures, but their excessive leverage compounded their problems as the credit crisis stripped them of the ability to raise the additional capital they needed to survive.

The Outlook for Wall Street

What’s the outlook for those working on Wall Street now? No doubt there will be less excitement and no more of the huge bonuses that dealmakers had grown accustomed to. But there are bigger concerns about whether the U.S. will lose its competitive edge and the ability to maintain its power status in the global financial system.

Some of the best and brightest might pull up stakes and head for better opportunities in the burgeoning Asian Markets, or they could flip over to the unregulated Hedge Fund market—at least for as long as those funds manage to survive. Thousands of Hedge Funds are going out of business, bringing serious grief to investors like the huge public pension funds, foundations and endowments that have poured billions of dollars into these private partnerships.

If there is any good news in this economic fiasco, it’s this: Main Street stands to eventually benefit from a better regulated Wall Street.  With a more transparent financial system, a firmer foundation and a stronger business model, there might be a promising outlook for more stable and consistent growth.



Harvey

Stop Writing Press Releases. Start Writing News Releases

Thursday, December 11th, 2008
Philip Yaffe asked:


Recommending that you stop writing press releases and start writing news releases is not a play on words. It is sound advice.

In common parlance, “press release” and “news release” mean the same thing. However, the terminology people use often betrays a fundamental difference in how they put this information together and how well it is accepted by the media.

Early in my career, I was editor of a daily newspaper and later a writer with The Wall Street Journal. One of my jobs was to screen submissions to decide which ones we would print and which ones we would throw away.

Approximately 80 - 85% of submissions failed the first screening, a life or death decision usually made within 60 seconds or less. On the other hand, the vast majority of those that survived this first screening also survived the second one and were ultimately published.

What made the difference? Basically, it was in how the author of the document viewed the material being submitted.

·      Losers. Information a company or organisation wanted to see printed for its own benefit.

·      Winners. Information a company or organisation wanted to see printed for its own benefit and the benefit of our readers.

In both cases, the submitter had something to gain if we published the release, i.e. positive publicity. However, in the first case, the focus was on only how the submitter would benefit from publication. In the second, it was on both how the submitter and our readers would benefit.

A Concrete Example

If all this sounds a bit theoretical, here is an example to make it more concrete.

After leaving The Wall Street Journal, I was an account executive with a major international press relations agency. One of my subordinates presented me with a typically self-serving press release he wanted to distribute on behalf of his client.

 

The headline was something like: Egotistical Industries gains major new contract. The first paragraph said something like:

“Tom Bighead today announced that Egotistical Industries has won a $350,000 contract to supply window sealants for the new sports centre currently under construction in Baden-Baden, Germany. Egotistical Industries was founded in 1989 by Mr. Bighead and his brother George, and is now considered to be the leading company in its field. Last year the company’s sales were . . . .”

In the fifth paragraph, if anyone would read that far, we learned that the sealant the company would supply had the property of not freezing in cold weather, so work on the sports centre could be carried out in December, rather than waiting for warmer weather in March or April.

This of course was the true story. If you are a reader of a professional construction magazine, you couldn’t care less that Egotistical Industries has a new contract. By contrast, you could be vitally interested in knowing that you could possibly gain three months on your construction schedule by using Egotistical’s product.

More importantly, editors of professional construction magazines would view the release this way.

Remember: Editors are vitally concerned about what their readers want to read, because if they lose readership, they lose their jobs. The real target of your release must be the editors. They are the gatekeepers. If they value the release, it gets published; if they don’t, it doesn’t.

We therefore rewrote the information into a news release with the headline: Windows in Baden-Baden Sports Centre will be sealed in the dead of winter, saving the contractor approximately $30,000 in labour costs. The first paragraph, and as many additional paragraphs as necessary, elaborated on this very attractive theme. The background information about the company came at the end of the release where it justifiably belonged.

The Short Road to Nowhere

Here’s another example. As a marketing communication consultant, I was asked by a client to write a release announcing an important new service. I was told to limit the release to 400 words. “Why 400 words?” I asked. “Well, it’s our policy to keep our releases short. Journalists like that.”

The problem was, I couldn’t find a way of saying everything that needed to be said in only 400 words. The client was insistent. I finally produced something at 400 words which the client felt was exactly what was wanted. But when the release was issued, no one published it.

The client called a few newspapers and magazines to find out why. The answer was, they just didn’t see anything that would be of interest to their readers. I then called a couple of these newspapers and magazines and asked, “Do you think you readers would be interested in X.” “Yes, why didn’t you put that in the release?”

Well, I had. But under the stricture of the 400-word limit, it had become so severely condensed as to be cryptic. It was there—if you knew what to look for. The function of an effective release is to give information, not challenge journalists to find it.

I rewrote the release. This time it came out to 650 words and was widely published. Why? Because it had been transformed from a press release, i.e. what the client wanted to say, into a news release—what journalists believed their readers wanted and needed to know.

Each time you start tapping at the keyboard, keep uppermost in mind the aspects that make a release a “news release”.

·    First, a release gets published only if editors feel that it offers something their readers want and need to know. So make certain that it does.

·    Second, there is no “correct” length for a news release. To paraphrase a sexist joke (I apologise, but it is just too pertinent), a news release should be like a miniskirt: short enough to be interesting, and long enough to cover the subject.



Claudia

Worrying News From Asia/russia/us Bailouts

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008
Australasian Investment Review asked:


As the US moves towards passing an economic stimulus package and reshaping its banking bailout and assistance, there’s bad news from Asia that should cause tremors here.

The US Senate will vote on the $US872 billion package, the US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner is due to outline the bank package overnight Tuesday and now there’s news that Russia is looking to reschedule debt.

That has already shaken currency markets in Asia and Europe after it was reported by the leading Japanese business paper, the Nikkei.

The move was then confirmed by this report on Bloomberg

“Russian banks asked the government to moderate talks to restructure $US400 billion of loans to foreign banks falling due within four years, said the head of the Russian Association of Regional Banks.”

“It would be most effective if the debt were restructured so it’s clear to everyone, creditors and borrowers, how the debt will be paid,” Aksakov said. “The government has the money. Some companies and banks have rather large hard currency liabilities on their balance sheets.”

Speculation of European bank losses on Russian loans drove declines in the euro against the dollar and yen today. Russia has pledged more than $200 billion in emergency funding as plunging oil prices push the world’s biggest energy supplier into its worst economic crisis since 1998 when it defaulted.

The euro fell sharply on the report, sliding against the US dollar and the yen. The Australian dollar also fell under 66 US cents, down nearly 2 cents in a day.

The newspaper quoted a Russian banking industry official as saying up to $US400 billion in debt was at stake.

Nikkei claimed that a proposal for postponing repayment had been submitted to the government and some foreign banks have already agreed to start negotiations.

The news overshadowed more worrying news from China, Taiwan and Japan.

Chinese inflation fell to its lowest pace in over two years at 1% in January and a senior researcher with the Bank of Japan, the country’s central bank, has warned that the country’s economy faces a severe contraction.

Chinese producer prices fell 3.3%, the lowest in around seven years as the slumping in oil and fuel prices, plus the slowing economy, continued to curtail price pressures seen for most of 2008.

The fall in price pressures came after exports fell in December and growth cooled to an average 6.8% in the 4th quarter (and in reality probably didn’t move at all). That was the weakest growth for 7 years.

Figures mentioned in media reports for January’s exports suggest a further fall after December’s weakness. We should know today or tomorrow.

The 1% rise in consumer prices in January from January 2008, when prices started rising after higher oil prices and the impact of huge winter storms pushed up food and power costs, was after they rose by 1.2% in December.

China’s economy grew 9% in 2008 after a 13% rise in 2007.

In Taiwan, a combination of the Chinese New Year and the global recession saw the country’s exports slump by more than 40% in January, a terrible outcome.

Taiwan is Asia’s sixth-largest economy and exports in January exports fell 44.1% from the same month of 2008, the biggest drop since government records began in 1972. It was also the fifth consecutive month that exports have fallen.

Japanese exports in December plunged 35%, South Korea’s by 32%.

In Japan the Bank of Japan’s top researcher warned on Monday of an “unimaginable” contraction in the Japanese economy in the current quarter after new figures revealed soaring bankruptcies and another fall in machinery orders.

The Financial Times said that the comments from Kazuo Momma, head of the central bank’s research and statistics department, “underscore the gloom surrounding the world’s second largest economy as export orders dry up, companies shut down production lines and consumers snap shut their wallets and purses”.

“From October to December the scale of negative growth (in GDP) may have been unimaginable – and we have to consider the possibility that there could be even greater decline between January and March,” Mr Momma warned in a speech yesterday.

It would be “quite a while” before inventories adjust.

Nissan this week revealed 20,000 job cuts and a loss of close to $US2.9 billion. Last Friday Toyota warned of its biggest ever loss in the year to March 31 of over $US4 billion.

On Friday, it cut its global production estimate for the year to March to 7.08 million, down 20%, as it put a third of its global assembly lines on a single shift.

“The sales environment has worsened dramatically in the past month and a half in the main markets of Japan, North America and Europe,” Executive Vice President Mitsuo Kinoshita told a news conference.

For the year to the end of March, Toyota now expects an operating loss of ¥450 billion ($US4.95 billion), three times what it forecast in late December

Car sales in Japan fell the most in 35 years last month.

Before Toyota on Friday Mitsubishi and Mazda revealed big loss estimates. Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba and NEC, giants of Japanese and global business in their sectors, all warned of losses of a size not even contemplated by the most pessimistic of forecasters four weeks ago.

Panasonic will lose around $US4 billion and is sacking thousands of workers, as is NEC and the other companies.

It’s no wonder the country is heading for its worst postwar recession as factory output slumped an unprecedented 9.6% in December (8.5% in November) and unemployment surged.

Japan announces fourth quarter gross domestic product data next week. Tokyo-based economists say GDP will have fallen more than 3% compared with the previous quarter – an annualised decline of well over 10%.

Many companies have suffered the effect of the domestic slowdown and the collapse of export markets in the US, Asia and Europe: cars and consumer electronics being prime examples.

The effect on corporate capital spending has been marked, with core private-sector machinery orders plunging 17% quarter-on-quarter in the three months to December, their fastest fall on record.

…….

The US has unveiled a three-part program to stabilise the financial system, a move that failed to meet the credibility test at first glance.

 

US sharemarkets fell sharply, down more than 4% as analysts and investors digested the details of the plan announced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Oil prices plunged to well under $US38 a barrel.

It was the biggest fall of the year so far on Wall Street. Our market will open weaker today.

 

What analysts saw they didn’t much like, from initial comments. The general tone of the comments was ‘too little’ and not tough enough on so-called ‘zombie banks’ which are institutions still alive but not doing much business.

But there’s also an element of being reminded of the reality of the US financial system and economy: that it is essentially broke, along with most of the big names in banking (and perhaps insurance) .

An unrealistic bullishness had been around last week ahead of this plan being announced. Some reality has hopefully been restored, but the plan itself could have been more realistic as well.

 

The main components of the Treasury’s package are a joint public- and private-sector fund to buy as much as $US1 trillion of illiquid assets and a $US1 trillion program to supply new credit to consumers and businesses.

The plan also calls for additional taxpayer to be injected funds into banks, while imposing tighter restrictions that will include limits on dividend payments, acquisitions and executive pay.

 

An initial fund of $US500 billion to absorb toxic assets will be established and $US50 billion will be committed to prevent home mortgage foreclosures, which is still the driving force of the current instability.

 

Mr Geithner said in his speech revealing the plan’s outline, that the plan would “bring the full force of the US government to bear to strengthen our financial system so that we get the economy back on track”.

However, he did not put a price tag on the new plan, which is expected to exceed the remaining half of the original $700 billion TARP. The US Treasury will not ask Congress for more money right now.

The Treasury will also “stress test” the big banks to see how well they are placed to handle a further slowing of the economy, and provide additional funds as needed. Banks receiving money will have to provide details about their intended uses for the money.

A key element will be the public-private investment fund started with $US500 billion “with the potential to expand up to $US1 trillion” to help cleanse the banking system of toxic real-estate assets.

This will serve the role of an aggregator bank, or “bad bank” to help financial institutions value their mortgage securities and clean up their balance sheets.

A second element will include additional capital injections into banks.

“While banks will be encouraged to access private markets to raise any additional capital needed to establish this buffer, a financial institution that has undergone a comprehensive ’stress test’ will have access to a Treasury-provided ‘capital buffer’ to help absorb losses and serve as a bridge to receiving increased private capital,” the Treasury said.

Thirdly, the Treasury and Federal Reserve will expand the existing program to boost lending for mortgages and other consumer and business loans to up to $US1 trillion.>

The Fed would lift the amount to $US1 trillion from the previously announced $US800 billion for its Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, which would accept mortgage-backed securities and securities backed by car loans, credit card loans, student loans, and some small business loans.

The expansion “would be supported by the provision by the Treasury of additional funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program”, the Fed said. The Treasury has already ’seeded’ this fund with $US20 billion.

Meanwhile the US Senate has passed its version of the Administration’s fiscal stimulus bill by 61 votes to 27 on Tuesday, clearing the way for Congress to thrash out final legislation for President Barack Obama to sign into law, hopefully by the end of this week.

Democrats forced through the bill with support from only three moderate Republicans, hurting Mr Obama’s hope of bipartisan backing for the plan

The Senate bill now has to be reconciled with the House of Representatives version passed last month before sending final legislation to the White House.

The House version contains about $US 100 billion more spending than the Senate bill, which includes more tax cuts.

IMPORTANT: AIR reports about financial markets and investment products in the widest sense possible. The AIR website and all its contents is prepared for general information only, and as such, the specific needs, investment objectives or financial situation of any particular user have not been taken into consideration. Individuals should therefore talk with their financial planner or advisor before making any investment decisions.



Adam

What’s All This Doom and Gloom on Wall Street?

Saturday, December 6th, 2008
Larry Parr asked:


Copyright (c) 2008 Larry Parr

Why all the doom and gloom over falling stock prices? The only reason investors are worried over a crashing market is because they just don’t know how to trade stocks.

My portfolio is up almost 100% each and every trading month. Whether the market is going up or the market is going down, it’s all the same to me.

I really can’t get behind all of this financial hand-wringing and whining. If stocks are going down then sell short. Or buy puts. Or even sell calls. I mean, there are plenty of ways to cover your assets in a falling market.

Oh, I know the government put some restrictions on short-selling for a few days. They even put restrictions on buying certain puts for several days. There have even been restrictions on market orders placed before the opening bell, but so what?

Are we all so locked in to the silly little notion that all we can do is buy and hold stocks for the long term that we’ve all forgotten how to roll up our sleeves and get a little dirty? There’s TONS of money to be made in the markets right now. Today. In fact, EVERY trading day, whether the market is soaring or going straight down the crapper is a fantastic day for any trader who understands the markets and knows ahead of time which way they’re going.

That’s the real problem most traders have, isn’t it? They simply haven’t a clue how the markets really work. And what’s worse, many of them THINK they understand what’s going on. They THINK that fundamentals or some piece of breaking news is what is driving the short-term direction of the market.

I’m sorry, but those blinkered investors get very little sympathy from me. Wake up and embrace the markets in all of their multi-directional splendor!

You can’t just sit back and wait to make money in a market that’s spiraling ever higher. That market’s a memory. It may return, but right now you’ve got to switch financial gears and get with the program.

First of all, understand that stock prices are NOT random and never have been. Stocks trade to a very precise mathematical pattern. Always. Every day, rain or shine, up-market or down-market stock prices are predictable.

It’s easy enough to see that for yourself. Just place a child’s plastic protractor on the high point or the low point of almost any stock chart and look at where prices fall. Just look at how many daily trading ranges hit the 50, 60 or 70 degree line on your protector TO THE PENNY.

Now look for chart gaps. How many of them are cut by one of the three degree lines I just mentioned? 100% of them?

How can any of that be in a random market? It can’t - obviously.

Now just as obviously you can’t trade the markets using just that child’s protractor, but the point is THE MARKETS AREN’T RANDOM. Whether you can see the whole pattern or not isn’t important. The important thing is that the markets aren’t random.

And if they aren’t random then there MUST, by definition, be a pattern to them…there MUST be a way to predict them.

So don’t settle for guessing which way the markets are going. Learn how to use Fibonacci ratios. Experiment. Let your imagination run wild as you pour over chart after chart looking for the formula that will tell you with laser-like precision what the short-term direction of the market is.

The answer is there. In a non-random market the answer HAS to be there.

Because once you abandon the idea that the markets are random, and once you disabuse yourself of the notion that your broker knows more about stocks than you do, then the sooner you can commit yourself to discovering the truth behind the markets and the sooner you’ll be able to smile every trading day regardless of the direction the market is headed.



Alvin