Quote of the Day: Protection-Racket Capitalism

Let’s see.

1. The Justice Department is suing a rating agency (Standard and Poor’s). The rating agencies are creatures of the SEC (which created their oligopoly and encouraged them to be paid by the raters rather than the customers of the ratings).

2. The SEC is suing Freddie and Fannie, which are creatures of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under which the two firms were regulated and also given lending quotas for “affordable housing.”

So, when is HUD going to sue a company that is a creature of the Justice Department, just to complete the circle?

One way to view the period 2005-2009 is as a massive destruction of property rights by the government. First, they destroy the right of Freddie, Fannie, and commercial banks to maintain lending standards. Then they confiscate the property of holders of securities in GM and Chrysler to pay off the labor unions. Then they sell off AIG’s assets in order to bail out Goldman Sachs and several large foreign banks. And of course, the government has made every effort to keep banks from enforcing mortgage contracts, while extracting large fines from banks.

It’s beyond crony capitalism. It’s protection-racket capitalism

This is from author, economist and professor Arnold Kling at the Askblog on the financial crisis.

2008 US Mortgage Crisis: The US Federal Reserve and Crony Capitalism as Principal Causes

Stanford University’s John B. Taylor reviewed Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner’s newest book, Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.

He finds that the Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner placed the blame mostly on a complex crony based system between the financial industry and US Federal Reserve.

Mr. Taylor writes, (hat tip David Boaz) [bold emphasis mine]

The book focuses on two agencies of government, Fannie Mae and the Federal Reserve. The mutual support system is better explained and documented in the case of Fannie, the government-sponsored enterprise that supported the home mortgage market by buying mortgages and packaging them into marketable securities which it then guaranteed and sold to investors. The federal government supported Fannie Mae — and the other large government-sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac — by implicitly backing up those guarantees and by providing favorable regulatory treatment and protection from competition. These benefits enabled Fannie to rake in excess profits — $2 billion in excess, according to a 1995 study by the Congressional Budget Office.

Fannie Mae was established as a government agency but became a private, shareholder owned company with a charter from Congress requiring the company to support the housing finance system. During the culmination of the crisis in 2008 Fannie Mae along with another Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Freddie Mac was nationalized.

The point is that politically motivated enterprises operate distinctly from the incentives of free market forces. Such entities are wards of the state.

Yet none of this is new to followers of the Austrian school.

Murray N. Rothbard narrated on a parallel unholy relationship between the US Federal Reserve and the commercial banks [bold emphasis mine]

It should now be crystal clear what the attitude of commercial banks is and almost always will be toward the Central Bank in their country. The Central Bank is their support, their staff and shield against the winds of competition and of people trying to obtain money which they believe to be their own property waiting in the banks' vaults. The Central Bank crucially bolsters the confidence of the gulled public in the banks and deters runs upon them. The Central Bank is the banks' lender of last resort, and the cartelizer that enables all the banks to expand together so that one set of banks doesn't lose reserves to another and is forced to contract sharply or go under. The Central Bank is almost critically necessary to the prosperity of the commercial banks, to their professional career as manufacturers of new money through issuing illusory warehouse receipts to standard cash.

So whether it is the politically backed GSEs or the commercial banks, the US Federal Reserve implicitly treats them as natural political constituents.

Mr. Taylor adds,

The book then gives examples where Fannie’s executives — Jim Johnson, CEO from 1991 to 1998, is singled out more than anyone else — used the excess profits to support government officials in a variety of ways with plenty left over for large bonuses: They got jobs for friends and relatives of elected officials, including Rep. Barney Frank, who is tagged as “a perpetual protector of Fannie,” and they set up partnership offices around the country which provided more jobs. They financed publications in which writers argued that Fannie’s role in promoting homeownership justified federal support. They commissioned work by famous economists, such as Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz, which argued that Fannie was not a serious risk to the taxpayer, countering “critics who argued that both Fannie and Freddie posed significant risks to the taxpayer.” They made campaign contributions and charitable donations to co-opt groups like the community action organization ACORN, which “had been agitating for tighter regulations on Fannie Mae.” They persuaded executive branch officials — such as then Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers — to ask their staffs to rewrite reports critical of Fannie. In the meantime, Countrywide, the mortgage firm led by Angelo Mozilo, partnered with Fannie in originating many of the mortgages Fannie packaged (26 percent in 2004) and gave “sweetheart” loans to politicians with power to affect Fannie, such as Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The authors write that “Countrywide and Fannie Mae were inextricably bound.”

The above only shows that political distribution, whether it is in the Philippines or in the US, are apportioned not by merits but by political affiliations. And on the same plane, the gaming of the system by vested interest groups.

Again from Mr. Taylor,

The Fed takes a beating throughout the book. Early on the authors take on the Boston Fed, and in particular its research director Alicia Munnell, for using a study documenting racial discrimination in mortgage lending to justify the relaxation of credit standards, even though the study’s findings were found to be flawed by other researchers. And they criticize the very low interest rate set by the Fed when Alan Greenspan was chairman and Ben Bernanke was a Fed governor, saying it “contributed mightily to the mortgage lending craze,” adding that “with the Fed on a rate-cutting rampage, demand for adjustable-rate mortgages with relatively low initial interest costs had become incendiary.”

Well aside from low interest rates and the administrative policies to boost homeownership, there had been many other factors that has likewise contributed to the bubble, such as tax policies which encouraged exposure on debt rather than equity, agency problems and moral hazard (implicit backing from the Fed or the Greenspan Put), regulatory arbitrage which resulted to the creation of the (off balance sheet) shadow banking system, regulatory capture which played a substantial part of the crony relationships, the conflict of interest on credit rating agencies which had skewed incentives in favor debt issuers (investment banks) and many more.

Inflationism compounded by various forms of interventions represents as the anatomy of a bubble.

Poker Bluff: The Exit Strategy Theme For 2010

Many have used the strong showing of 2009 to advert that 2010 would be the year of “exits”. I don't buy it.

As in the game of poker, I’d call this equivalent to a policymaker’s Poker bluff.

Clear Divergence: Periphery Versus Core

This ‘exit strategy’ may be probably ring true for many emerging markets whose economies have been more responsive to the hodgepodge of policies designed to cushion the economies from downside volatility.

Again, the wide variance of performances of emerging markets relative to advanced economies validates our theory since the peak of the crisis where each nations would respond differently to the near uniform set of policies adopted, leading to divergent market and economic results.

And such patent discrepancies have led to earlier tightening policies of some nations. According to the Businessweek, ``Since Nov. 30, the central banks of Australia, Vietnam, Norway and Israel have raised interest rates, and signs the global recession is ending have spurred speculation the U.S. Federal Reserve will follow this year.”

On Thursday, China joined the roster of countries engaged in a rollback of easy money policies, the Businessweek quotes the Bloomberg, ``China's move to raise the cost of three-month bills will probably lead to the nation's first interest-rate increase in almost three years by September, a survey of economists showed.”

Figure 2: Economist: Decoupling in Government Debt and Growth

The Economist says that a major source of this growth discrepancy will likely emanate from the PONZI scheme employed by major economies to substitute lost ‘aggregate’ demand with leverage incurred by government to spur this ‘demand’.

From the Economist, ``Advanced economies, which aggressively stimulated demand and are forecast to experience weak GDP growth next year, contrast starkly with the G20’s developing countries. After some gentle fiscal stimulus, these countries are on track for strong growth next year. The IMF forecasts that gross government debt among advanced economies will continue to rise until 2014, reaching 114% of GDP, compared to just 35% for developing nations. With governments struggling to rein in their finances, rating agencies are becoming increasingly twitchy; rich countries such as America and Britain are fearful of losing their hallowed triple-A status.” (all bold highlights mine)

Of course there are many other reasons to suggest why emerging markets seem to be on a secular trend to play catch up with advanced economies, particularly positive demographic trend, urbanization, high savings rate, low debt or systemic leverage, unimpaired banking system, rising middle class and most importantly a trend towards embracing economic freedom via more freer trade, investments, financial and migration flows [e.g. see Asian Regional Integration Deepens With The Advent Of China ASEAN Free Trade Zone]

However the more important factor revealed by the Economist in the terse article above is that the debt onus for advanced economies implies low productivity, cost of crowding out private investments, larger tax burden, greater risks of escalating consumer prices, higher than average unemployment rate, greater cost of financing debt, heightened sovereign risk premia and fiscal austerity measures that may entail a higher degree of political volatility.

Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff seconds this view in a recent study,

``Our main finding is that across both advanced countries and 23 emerging markets, high debt/GDP levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. In addition, for emerging markets, there appears to be a more stringent threshold for total external debt/GDP (60 percent), that is also associated with adverse outcomes for growth. Seldom do countries simply “grow” their way out of deep debt burdens.”

Alternatively, this also raises the risks of an implosion in the fast emerging government debt bubble, which we will call as the Keynesian Debt Crisis-(since most of these debts were acquired in the context of the Keynesian ideology), one of the risks that could spoil our fun in 2010.

Nearly 90% of the world’s bond markets have been denominated in these four major currencies (Ivy Global Bond): the US dollar, the Japanese yen, British pound, dollar, and the euro.

This means that even if many emerging markets will tighten, it is the policies from the advanced economies that will likely have a greater impact on global capital flows.

And it is why we hypothesize that even if global policymakers pay lip service to the so-called “exit strategies”, what truly matters will be the policy actions by authorities in the face of the evolving activities in the marketplace, the real and the political economy.

Hence, it would be an immense mistake to parse on a single variable, e.g. unemployment, when there would be sundry factors in determining political action.

In other words, this means deducing political and economic persuasions or ideology of the incumbent officials, interpreting their underlying cognitive biases based on their speeches, interviews or official pronouncements, analyzing their interpretation of events and lastly appraising on the political influences of certain interest groups that may determine the prospective actions of policymakers.

The Underlying Incentives Of The Poker Bluff

So what factors could likely determine the direction of policy actions?

Interest Rate Derivatives. One must realize of the extent of sensitivity of global asset values are to interest rates.

Figure 3: BIS: Composition Of Global Derivatives

Interest rate derivatives account about 72% or $437 trillion of the notional $605 trillion as of June of 2009 according to the Bank of International Settlements.

Any unexpected volatility from so-called monetary rollback could amplify the risks of unnerving the markets. Thereby, policymakers would likely remain supportive of unorthodox actions like Quantitative Easing.

Hence, we see the recent measures by the Bank of Japan to impose their version of Quantitative Easing last December has catapulted the Nikkei to outperform [see The US Federal Reserve Experiments On Unwinding Stimulus As Bank Of Japan Engages in QE]. In addition, the Bank Of England remains with on track with its ₤ 190 billion of asset purchases and which is likely to increase to ₤ 200 billion (Edmund Conway, Telegraph) and possibly more.

Expanding GSE Operations. In the US, a day before Christmas eve, as everyone had been partying, the US government via the US Treasury stealthily lifted its financing cap on the Government Sponsored Enterprise of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) [Wall Street Journal].

Essentially, this places the GSE debt on the US balance sheets, which technically has been operating on “implied” guarantees. Some analysts see that the ambiguity of the US position has led to foreigners to become risk-averse and avoid purchases of these securities.

Hence, the US treasury hopes that by making “implicit” guarantees as “explicit”, it would reduce the pressure on US Fed to bolster the US housing market via Quantitative Easing, and make GSE assets more attractive.

Remember about 9 out of 10 mortgages transacted today have been consummated by these GSE entities, thereby by opening the checkbook to absorb more tainted assets and in the absence of the resumption of foreign interests, the alternative view is that the Fed could increase its scope of quantitative easing programs.

Of course by incorporating the aforementioned GSE debt on the US balance sheets, recorded US liabilities will rise and exert pressures on its sovereign credit ratings.

The point is, US housing market, even faced with some semblance of recovery, remains heavily sensitive to interest rates movement which will likely compel authorities to tweak with financial markets and remain policy easy.

Policymaker’s Economic Ideology. Ben Bernanke is known as an expert of the Great Depression from which his views on monetary policy has been oriented towards the Milton Friedman model, i.e. to provide generous liquidity during an economic recession. The illustrious Mr. Milton Friedman in an interview with Radio Australia said, ``So in our opinion, the Great Depression was not a sign of the failure of monetary policy or a result of the failure of the market system as was widely interpreted. It was instead a consequence of a very serious government failure, in particular a failure in the monetary authorities to do what they'd initially been set up to do.”

And it is likely that from this monetary paradigm he sees the risks of an economic relapse from premature tightening as that in 1937-38. Hence Mr. Bernanke is likely to pursue what he sees as a triumphant path dependency policy of money printing.

Analyst Mike Larson says it best, ``Look at Chairman Bernanke’s background. Massive money printing is at the heart of his entire philosophy. He literally wrote the book on this subject — the book that’s now essentially the Fed’s operating manual on precisely how to print enough money to overwhelm almost any economic collapse.

``Bernanke believes in his heart of hearts that the Fed prematurely hiked rates in 1937, prolonging the Great Depression into 1938 and beyond. He’s convinced that that single, momentous blunder of history is what doomed the world to a nasty “double dip.” (emphasis added)

It’s also the reason why Fed Chair Ben Bernanke recently put the blame squarely on the shoulders of belated regulatory response as having caused the crisis and exculpated the low interest regime (Bloomberg).

By keeping the political heat off low interest rates, he hopes and intends to divert the public’s attention away from his primary tool to manipulate markets.

Ironically and bizarrely too, Mr. Bernanke used the Taylor Rule model to justify the exoneration of role of low interest to the recent crisis.

However John Taylor, a Professor at Stanford University and a former Treasury undersecretary, the creator of the popular model challenged and issued a rejoinder on Bernanke’s interpretation saying ``The evidence is overwhelming that those low interest rates were not only unusually low but they logically were a factor in the housing boom and therefore ultimately the bust.” (Bloomberg).

This goes to show that the fudging, twisting and the manipulation of the means (model or data) in order to come up with the desired end signify as a symptom of economic dogmatism, which operates regardless of the veracity of the implied causality.

Record Debt Issuance, Rollover and Interest Payments. We have pointed out that the US economy, while indeed has been manifesting signs of recovery, hasn’t been entirely out of woods.

The next wave of mortgage resets, which we identified as Alt-A, Prime mortgages, and commercial real estate, which follows the original strain-the subprime mortgages, are still putting pressure on the US real estate industry [as discussed in Governments Will Opt For The Inflation Route].

Moreover, many US States have been staggering from bloated deficits stemming from falling tax revenues in the face of bubble day spending budgets, probably this year will mark a series of bailouts from the Federal government [see Federal Bailout For US States In 2010?]

So together with huge fiscal spending slated for 2010 plus the rollover of maturing debts and the attendant interest payments, as previously discussed in Market Myths and Fallacies On The Dubai Debt Crisis, all these would translate to some $3.6 Trillion of financing required for the US for this year.

We said then,

``$1.9 trillion of debt required for refinancing + $1.5 trillion in additional deficits + $ .2 trillion in interest payments=$3.6 trillion of financing required for 2010! Since US and global savers (particularly Asia) are unlikely to finance this humungous amount, [other parts of the world will require debt financing too (!!)], the available alternative options appear to be narrowing-the Federal Reserve would have to act as the financer of last resort through the Bernanke’s printing press or declare a default. Of course, Bernanke could always pray for a “Dues ex machina” miracle.”

This means that to activate an “exit” mode by raising interest rates risks heightening the amount required for financing. That’s obviously is a NO CAN DO for the authorities.

Moreover, the US won’t likely take the risks of a “failed auction” during its record Treasury sales this year, since this would likely send the interest and bond markets into a tailspin or a mayhem.

This means that as contingent plans we expect that the US Federal Reserve will remain as THE buyer of the last resort for the US treasury markets.

Devaluation as an unofficial policy. We have stated in numerous occasions [e.g. see Changing The Rules Of The Game By Inflation] how Ben Bernanke champions the mainstream view of oversimplifying economic problems by reducing (yes reduction ad absurdum) them into few variables. Hence by focusing on a few variables such as global imbalances, he sets forth devaluation as the key instrument for economic salvation- via his Helicopter “nuclear” option.

Again Mr. Bernanke in his Helicopter speech, ``it's worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation.”

Yes it’s a supreme irony for government to promote debt, yet fear its consequence-deflation.

It’s also worth repeating that the only way to achieve devaluation is through inflationism which is what Bernanke’s Zero Interest Rate policy, quantitative easing and host of other interventionism-in the form alphabet soup of programs to the tune of Trillions of spending and guarantees, have all been about.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Stabilization of the Monetary Unit? From the Viewpoint of Theory ``The valuation of a monetary unit depends not on the wealth of a country, but rather on the relationship between the quantity of, and demand for, money.”

The same ideology afflicts other policymakers as seen in Japan, England and most of the central bankers of the world.

Remember, inflationism is a form of protectionism, since it supports or protects the interests of some politically favorite sectors at the expense of the rest of the society.

In the case of the US, such collective ‘devaluation’ policies appear aimed at alleviating the untenable debt levels held by the banking industry.

Although the public seem to have been grossly misled by political demagoguery and politically colored experts who try to make believe the tomfoolery that devaluation is about exports (only 11% of the economy see Dueling Keynesians Translates To Protectionism?) or about jobs.

Of course, another mechanism of devaluation is the transferring of the resources from the real economy to the banking and finance industry.

Unfortunately for the gullible adherents, who seem to have lost any semblance of critical thinking and common sense enough to swallow hook line and sinker the hogwash that such political propaganda as the “truth”, “candidness” of the messenger and meant as “best” for the social order.

Hardly in the understanding that such political actions represent as ruse for a political end. Again from Professor von Mises, ``By deceiving public opinion, it permits a system of government to continue which would have no hope of receiving the approval of the people if conditions were frankly explained to them.”

Hence, the so-called “exit” program would be antipodal to the policy thrust to devalue the currency.

Political Influences On Policy Making. One unstated reason why companies like General Motors or Chrysler have been nationalized or significantly buttressed by the government is due to the payback of favors to a political constituent, particularly in this case the labor union.

Considering that labor had been a big contributor to Obama’s election, where according to Heritage Foundation, ``Big Labor spent an estimated $450 million on the 2008 election, and the SEIU alone put $85 million into the political campaign — almost $30 million just for Obama’s election”, many of Obama’s major policies appears to have been designed as remuneration for political ties.

This can be seen with the recent tariffs slapped against China, the infrastructure stimulus spending which forces contractors to hire labor union members, the latest $154 billion round of stimulus passed in Congress last December targeted at reducing unemployment, proposed taxes on stock trades to fund labor projects, mass unionization of the US government which now constitutes more than half or 51.2% compared to 17.3% in 1973 and many more.

Of course the other vested interest group as stated above would be the banking sector.

The point is- a higher cost of financing from a series of interest rate increases and monetary policy rollback will vastly reduce the Obama administration’s capacity to fund the pet projects of his most favored allies.

And going into the election year for the US Senate in 2010, greatly reduces this incentive especially that the popularity of Democrats has been on a free fall, as shown by recent Gallup polls, WSJ-NBC News, and Ramussen Reports

Finally, the Question Of Having To Conduct Successful Policy Withdrawals. This would be technical in nature as it would involve the methodology of how excess reserves, the alphabet soup of market patches, guarantees and commitments will be successfully scaled down.

For us, thinking that garbage would be bought back at the original “subsidized” price is no more than wishful thinking. Most of the so-called “plans: would be like having off balance sheet holdings.

Figure 4: BIS: Central Bank Balance Sheet and Spreads for the Crisis

Analyst Jim Bianco was spot on when quoted by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, ``We believe the proposal of this new tool signals the Federal Reserve is still flailing around trying to look busy so everyone is assured they have a plan.” (Bold highlight mine)

Bottom line: Interest Rate Derivatives, Expanding GSE Operations, Economic Ideology Record Debt Issuance, Rollover and Interest Payments, Devaluation as an unofficial policy, Political Influences On Policy Making and the Question Of Having To Conduct Successful Policy Withdrawals all poses as huge factors or incentives that would drive any material changes in the Federal Reserve and or the US government policies.

In knowing the above, I wouldn’t dare call on their bluffs.

Risk Reward Tradeoffs And Not Plain Vanilla Averaging Down Is What Matters.

``If a speculator is correct half of the time, he is hitting a good average. Even being right 3 or 4 times out of 10 should yield a person a fortune if he has the sense to cut his losses quickly on the ventures where he is wrong.” -Bernard Baruch (1870-1965), Financer, Speculator Statesman and Presidential Adviser

A friend recently asked me if averaging down is the best way to approach the market, given today’s environment.

My response is- it depends.

In the investing sphere there is NO straightforward answer to glory, as much as there is NO Holy Grail or FOOLPROOF mathematical Greek “quant” formula or models to success.

For us, the success of such approach will depend on the market cycle, or it could also depend on the fundamental reasons behind the deterioration of the market or security or it could reflect on the discipline of the market practitioner.

Averaging Down = Playing with Falling Knives

Remember the basic rule is that PRICES ARE ALWAYS RELATIVE. Higher prices can become more expensive in as much as lower can prices can get cheaper.

The assumption that ALL prices that goes down will automatically always turn up is very dangerous. You may end up deeply hurting yourself by playing with falling knifes.

Table 1: Returns Required To Break Even

Table 1, as previously shown at our August 2007 article Why Cutting Losses Is Better Than Depending On Hope, depicts of the amount of losses and the corresponding gains required to offset or neutralize each losses.

The bottom line is that it takes MORE EFFORTS in the form of corresponding gains to offset every equivalent amount of loss initially generated. Imagine a 25% loss requires 33% gain to offset the original position as much as it would take a bigger 100% advance to cover up a former 50% loss. The bigger the loss, the greater the gains required to recover.

Therefore the assumption of “averaging down” means piling on more losses in the expectations that you can reduce your costs in the hope that the assets you’ve invested on would eventually recover. But what if it doesn’t? What if these assets continue to fall?

In essence, the basic problem with this assumption is that you don’t know WHEN the market/security stops falling. And if we keep adding to these losses, even if it does lower your averages, it exposes you to even more losses!

Figure 4: bigcharts.com: Averaging in Nasdaq’s Dotcom Bust Is Equivalent to Catching a Falling Knife

Market Cycles, Reference Points and Framing

Look at figure 4 courtesy of bigcharts.com. It is the chart from the US major technology weighted bellwether, the Nasdaq. If you had bought the Index in 1987 (leftmost red arrow) and held on it until today you’d still be up about 5 times even after the bust. But if you had “averaged down” consistently-periodically (say once every year on every market dips-assuming optimistically- but unrealistically- that you can catch every dips) you could have either given up some of these gains because of the sharp volatility swings during the latter half of the 90s until 2003.

But if you initiated buying anywhere near the peak of the dot.com bust in 1999-2000 and averaged during the past years (assuming equal level of the amount of purchase-with periodical averaging), you are still likely to be underwater (negative) even after eight LONG years!

And worst, if you bought into some of the favorite issues (and averaged “down” them!) during the heyday of the dotcom boom like Pets.com, Webvan, Exodus communication, Egghead.com, eToys or Furniture.com (cnn.com), you would have ended up with a big fat egg as these companies went kaput or bankrupt!

Remember, reference point always matters. Again if you initiated entry at the bottom of 2003 at the time when everybody was in disgust with technology issues then you are likely to be making some money today even if you periodically applied averaged “up” over the past few years. See the change in perspective? If I use the 1987 and 2003 as my reference point, you are most likely to be up, while if I utilize 1999-2000 perspective you are most likely down.

Don’t forget we are talking of nominal returns and not real (or inflation adjusted) returns. If we apply real returns on portfolio performance then your gains would be trimmed and your losses are likely to be accentuated (pls refer to table 1).

In essence, up or down (portfolio performance) depends on the date of entry, or prominently, on the whereabouts of the market cycle.

So we have to be wary of the nature of the “framing” presented to us by financial experts. From the hindsight everything is fait accompli, but what matters is not the past but the returns from taking on risk from the future. We can only learn from the past and apply its lessons in the future.

In addition, we can easily be captivated by the returns offered without understanding the risks behind such dynamics, this signifies as a basic caveat.

Risk Analysis Is A Fundamental Concern

In the same context, earlier this year, somebody suggested buying into US Financials as they believed that the string of sharp losses translated into feasible buying opportunities. We dissented, see Has Inflationary Policies of Global Central Banks Boosted World Equity Markets?

For us the US financials represents an epitome of a market trend that is in a structural decline.

Why? Because it will simply take years for US financials to normalize by writing off losses or by attaining full recapitalization following the gargantuan yet-to-be-revealed losses on their balance sheets, which is estimated to now reach $1.6 trillion by Bridgewater Associates (New York Times), after accrued recognized losses accounted for only about $400 billion or about 25% of estimates. Such losses may even adjust to the upside as the extent of damages becomes more visible.

In addition, financials will remain under tight pressure as it is in the process of “deleveraging” in the face of a “perfect storm”- tightening credit standards, falling economic growth, declining corporate profits, higher default rates, potential spread of asset portfolio losses (prime and Alt-A loan portfolios, commercial real estate, corporate and junk bonds) and high energy or consumer goods inflation.

Now add to the burden of the financials is the surfacing of the issue where a supposed implementation of a new regulation (FAS 140) that would lead to a prospective technical insolvency stirred a panic over “Government Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs in Fannie Mae (FNA) and Freddie Mac (FRE), which paid for record yields on the sale of 2 year notes, saw a remarkable plunge in their stock prices see figure 5 and the attendant volatility in the US markets led by the financials.

Figure 5: stock charts.com: Trouble at the GSEs

Figure 5 courtesy of stockcharts.com, shows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (F&F) having been caught in a panic frenzy while S&P 500 Financials Sector Index (lowest pane) and S&P Bank Index (pane below main window) have altogether been in a sharp retreat since May.

For starters, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned companies but receive support from the Federal Government. Because of this privilege they also assume of some public responsibilities.

F&F are accounted for as among the largest corporations in the world. They function to provide for a secondary market in home mortgages by purchasing mortgages from the lenders who originate them. They also hold some of these mortgages while others are securitized and sold to other investors in the form of securities stamped with the GSE guarantee (Jack Guttentag-mtgprofessor.com).

Figure 6: NYT: GSE’s Reach of Problems

The recent GSE’s problem is a systemic issue.

According to RGE spotlights (Hat tip: Craig McCarty) ``F&F own or guarantee some $4.5 trillion or 45% of all outstanding mortgages in U.S. Much of the $1.6 trillion agency debt is held by foreign central banks, i.e. sharp reduction in 2004-2006 of agency debt due to accounting restatements contributed to 'bond yield conundrum' as foreign central banks had to resort to existing Treasuries in order to compensate for agency debt shortfall.” (highlight mine)

Aside, (see figure 6) these companies provide the capital that banks use to write new loans. If F$F stop buying loans, banks may stop making new loans, freezing the US housing market (NYT). In addition virtually every Wall Street bank and many overseas financial institution, central banks and investors do business with F&F (NYT).

Another, F&F acts as major counterparties in the interest rate swap market which hedges on prepayment risks and maturity mismatches on the balance sheets (RGE spotlights-Hat tip: Craig McCarty). The role of GSEs has heightened the concentration risks for these markets.

As you can see the GSEs are heavily imbedded into the world financials institutions such that in the event of a failure or default they are likely to generate total cataclysm in the world markets, which is not likely to be the case since regulators will likely intervene.

But the other side of the coin is that taxpayers will likely pay a heavy price over these rescue efforts, notes the astute David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors, ``The government backing of F&F is “implied” and not explicit. A Congressional guarantee would change that. Studies of the cost of this Congressional failure suggest that the annual cost of this uncertainty created by the Congress is in the multi-hundred billions.”

And this is the probable reason why the US dollar index got slammed (down 1.07%) and gold soared by nearly 3%. And this too is the principal reason why we can’t be fundamentally bullish on the US dollar (yet), because even while global governments will act to “superficially” contain consumer goods inflation by increasing policy inflation (government spending-subsidies or doleouts or via tariffs) the extent of damage in the US financial system is so huge that would translate to constant intervention from authorities (which means more inflation).

This brings us back to WHY “averaging down” isn’t always a good option, take it from David Kotok (highlight ours), ``Common shares of F&F are another matter. We value them at near zero. In the Bear Stearns event we saw affirmation that the federal government had no sympathy for equity investors even as it preserved the rights of debt holders and counterparties. We believe the same is true for F&F. The stock market thinks so, too. That is why the equity value of F&F has been decimated. We have avoided F&F shares and have been selective in the use of broad ETFs where they are part of a large assemblage of stocks.”

If a stock is going to zero, what good is it then to average down?

In terms of fundamental risk analysis, owning the aforementioned shares simply because it is going down or for averaging purposes is a recipe for the total annihilation of one’s capital. It can also signify a “value trap” or prices have gone substantially below fundamentals as to draw in value investors into believing they are buying value but then experiences further dramatic decline in value.

In this case, averaging down becomes the terrifying equivalent of catching a falling knife.

If we are insistent to use “averaging” on a bear market as a strategy then extensive risk analysis on the company or the industry’s risk reward potentials should be utilized. Otherwise we must remember the 2 general rules of bear market investing: one bear markets tend to get oversold and remain oversold and two, bear markets decline on a ladder of hope where support levels exist to repeatedly get breached until hope vanishes.

Averaging Down Is A Market Discipline

Finally, averaging down is an approach that should reflect the investor’s market discipline. A risk strategy utilizing this methodology means consistency in its application throughout the market cycles. It means rigorously knowing your risk appetite and the constant assessment of fundamental variables.

We cannot be a fundamentalist when the market is down and transform into momentum traders when the market goes up, for this only heightens your risks engagements- as you put more risk capital as markets go down-while limiting your profit potentials when the market goes up. Thus the risk reward tradeoff is tilted to the side of risks. Besides, only brokers get rich with such market attitude.

As world’s most successful stock market investor Warren Buffett once said, ``Look at market fluctuations as your friend rather than your enemy; profit from folly rather than participate in it."