The WSJ reports Corzine Rebuffed Internal Warnings on Risks:

MF Global Holdings Ltd.'s executive in charge of controlling risks raised serious concerns several times last year to directors at the securities firm about the growing bet on European bonds by his boss, Jon S. Corzine, people familiar with the matter said.

The board allowed the company's exposure to troubled European sovereign debt to swell from about $1.5 billion in late 2010 to $6.3 billion shortly before MF Global tumbled into bankruptcy Oct. 31, these people said. The executive who challenged Mr. Corzine resigned in March.

The disagreement shows that concerns about the big bet grew inside the company months ...

As I have hinted in "The Ironic, Prophetic Nature of the MF Global Bankruptcy Filing and It's Potential Ramifications" I knew the ex-CEO of MF Global, and in particular member(s) of in the internal audit staff - one of which I knew very well and trained. There is one glaring FLAW in the structure of internal risk management and audit in MF Global, and that was that it was WEAK! If internal audit answers to operational executive management, then how can it truly crack the whip on its own boss. Now, granted, this is not endemic to just MF Global, but it is truly a problem. Internal audit/risk management needs to answer to a separate entity, apart from the CEO and possibly apart from the Board itself if the CEO has had a part in selecting the board. This way there is true independence and the nonsense that you just saw with MF Global has a much less likely chance of happening.

Alas, such is life. For instance, why are you reading this through a subscription blog versus PWC's audit report of MF Global? Hmmmmmm.....

For anybody who didn't catch the hint, another banking crisis the continuation of the banking crisis is inevitable. I've said it before, Is Another Banking Crisis Inevitable? This is the current landscape, undoubtedly fudged over by optimistic marks.

Banks NPAs to total loans

Source: IMF, Boombust research and analytics

Euro banks remain weak as compared to their US counterparts

Health of European banks is weaker when compared to US banks. European banks are highly leveraged compared to their US counterparts (11.1x versus 4.1x) and are undercapitalized with core capital ratio of 6.5x vs. 8.5x. Also, the profitability of European banks is lower with net interest margin of 1.2% compared with 3.3%. However, non-performing loans-to-total loans for European banks are slightly better off when compared to US with NPL/loans at 4.9% vs. 5.6%. Nonetheless, considering the backdrop of high exposure to sovereign debt in Euro peripheral countries, we could see substantial write-downs for Euro banks AFS and HTM portfolio, which would more than offsets the relative strength of loan portfolio.

I really do mean substantial!

With all due respect to that Nassim Taleb dude who popularized the term "Black Swasn", Black Swan events are both overrated and the term is sloppily bandied about by those who may not be putting the requisite thought into just how utilitarian the knowledge of Black Swans actually are. Since you can't accurately predict, nor back test against, nor adequately hedge against such events, exactly what good is a Black Swan discussion. Well, I can answer that question. Black Swan events do maximum damage when the economic cycle is at its weakest. In Reggie Middleton's Economic Circle of Life (think the Lion King) it is the right portion of the circle in which Black Swan events do the most damage.

Actually, it is not the Black Swan events themselves that do the damage but said event do serve as the catalyst that either bust a bubble that was waiting to pop anyway, or break a structure that was hobbling along on one leg as it was  - where we happen to be now in many places of the developed world - sans rampant propaganda, misinformation and disinformation from less than disinterested sources.

I have always been of the contention that the 2008 market crash was cut short by the global machinations of a cadre of central bankers intent on somehow rewriting the rules of economics, investment physics and global finance. They became the buyers of last resort, then consequently the buyers of only resort while at the same time flooding the world with liquidity and guarantees. These central bankers and the countries they allegedly strive to serve took on the debt and nigh worthless assets of the private sector who threw prudence through the window during the "Peak" phase of the circle of economic life, and engaged in rampant speculation. Click to enlarge to print quality...

My condolences truly go out to the people of Japan. A massive earthquake, a horrifyingly destructive tsunami, and then multiple nuclear emergencies and radiation poisoning is more distress than any nation had had to endure in such a short period of time in recent history. I am reticent to discuss the ramifications of such, alas that is the crux of the analysis of BoomBustBlog. I have noticed that many professional investors are detached from the real world causes and consequences of volatility and large swings in the markets. In a way, I can sort of understand. It's like playing a video game. All you are doing is pushing buttons in reactions to changing pixels on a glowing screen. Unfortunately, the reality of the matter is sometimes much more than that. Thus, as we go on to illustrate what I see will probably come out of this situation, let’s keep in mind that real people are getting hurt to very significant extent. Real children, real families, real grandparents...

What could the ruler of Egypt's turmoils possible have to do with the need to takeover even more banks in western Europe and the potential default of several members of the PIIGS group? Read on, my dear friend...

I received an impressive response from my earlier description of the potential for contagion as a result of the Egyptian uprising. It is very engaging to simply fathom the practical melding of the minds of financial analysts, political analysts and global macro-economists. Unfortunately, this is not common practice. As a matter of fact, it is apparently never done in the analysis & research commonly proffered by the brokerage houses and the mainstream media. The practical applications of such has demonstrably superior predictive power over the application of any of the single approaches. For those who have not followed me over the years or somehow feel that an individual or small group cannot outperform the glorious houses for brokerage of "The Street", I urge you to look into who I am and to compare my performance to that of the street's best and brightest over the last few years . I attempted to demonstrate the predictive powers and effectiveness of looking for deeper understanding outside of one's core discipline by illustrating to my readers how our Sovereign Contagion Model predicted a roughly 40% chance of eruption in the Middle East, reference Egypt’s Social Unrest As A Pan-European Economic and Financial Contagion? It Can Happen!!!:

Due to popular demand, I will be including some basic sample trades and some directional tools for BoomBustBlog research, starting with the next dollop of fundamental research. The first set will arrive next week, where we will offer an option tool and currency trend analysis app. Soon, possibly tomorrow, I will discuss the placement of options using the Google research that I illustrated here - Navigating BoomBustBlog Subscription Material To Find The Google Valuation Drilldown.

It has come to my attention that several banks have actually blocked rank and file level access to my blog through their intranet. That, my dear friends, is asinine, and does nothing but engender distrust. While I admit I can be rather flamboyant in my writings, I am nonetheless quite fair. In addition, my opinions are analytically driven, by design. Thus, if you have a differing opinion all you really need to do is challenge me with the facts. One of us will be proven to be right, or at the very least it will be shown to all how we came to our conclusions. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong or have made a mistake. I have been right long enough and often enough that I have plenty of emotional and even egotistical room for error. I know fully that no one is perfect, and while I would much rather catch any error first, before a third party does it (particularly a dissenting third party) I know that things don't always happen that way.

A commenter had a very intelligent dissent against my Goldman Sachs post on Zero Hedge the other day. While cogent, eloquent and very lengthy, it was still wrong but it definitely exemplified what a bank (or any other entity) should do when they feel that I am not in the right. Of course, if you put yourself out there, there is always the risk that you can be proven wrong as well. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you marketing and PR advisers may tell you - it is alright. As a matter of fact, it is actually good sometimes. You see, to many of the people that matter, it is not only acceptable, it is expected that you will not be right all of the time. Anybody who is right all of the time should be held up to a much higher level of scrutiny. Just ask Bernie Madoff. The true test of character and fortitude is to be able to publicly admit when you have made a boo-boo, and be willing to do something about it. That goes a lot farther in my eyes, than abject perfection. This is a lesson that the global and national banking industry in the US has yet to learn.

On that note, let's go over a few emails that I have received recently...

"Goldman, unlike the rest of the street and practically the rest of the I banking world, is ratcheting up off balance sheet risk!!! Is BoomBustBlog the only one inquiring as to WHY??? We have a few reasons in mind... And to think, many thought the Enronesque days of off balance sheet "hide the sausage" games have come to an end..." Go through your sell side analyst's quarterly update and if you don't find these tidbits of information thoroughly explained, but instead see a Goldman fan boy(girl) cheering section, come back and subscribe to BoomBustblog. At the very least, we tell it like it is!

My opinion and updated valuation for Goldman and its 3rd quarter performance is available for download to all paying subscribers: GS 3rd Quarter 2010 Update. While I can't spill the beans on the entire contents of the subscription document, there  are a few issues (as usual) and observations that I would like to make public.

To begin with, I must commend Goldman's management. They do a helluva job massaging numbers and attempting to right their ship, particularly in relation to some other banks. Anecdotally, I'm aware of their losing some talent on the equities side but I am sure they have no problem replacing it. There is also the issue of their subprime servicing unit, Litton Loans, which I am sure will bring them nothing but heartache in the near to medium term, but at least that aspect of the business has been recognized by the sell side, if not under appreciated in terms of potential risk. Despite its small size in relation to Goldman's aggregate operations, it carries with it material reputation risk as well as the prospects for significant litigation and more.

Now, on to the aspects which the sell side decided not to cover - or somehow overlooked. Goldman was applauded for having strong accounting earnings. In Four Facts That BANG JP Morgan That You Just Won’t Hear From The Sell Side!!!, I warned of the danger at looking at accounting earnings as if they were actually a legitimate barometer of a companies actual economic value. If that were the case, wouldn't accountants be the best investors in the world? I will delve into the folly of relying strictly on accounting earnings later on this missive as well, particularly in regards to a company with management as crafty and capable as Goldman - but before I do let's realize that even those accounting earnings were down significantly from previous periods...

I have received a lot of feedback concerning my article posted yesterday, A Step by Step Guide to Exactly How Much Derivatives Risk Each of the 5 Big Banks Actually

Have, and How It Could All Go Boom! (a must read precursor to this piece) in which I picked up the fiery sword of Truth and attacked all misinformation within reach. A decent amount of derivatives traders, salesman and financial engineers chimed in. Of course, being the simpleton that I am, I am at a loss how anybody can argue that the hedging and netting system actually works with the utter failure of the monolines, Lehman (wherein contracts were unwound and rewritten, but why would they have to be if everybody was netted???) and Bear Stearns (where the government had to step in to be the counterparty of last result), all of which allegedly netted out much of their risk - RIIGHHHT??? Nonetheless, I will go through some of the responses I received via email, all of which were cogent, intelligent and polite - but most of which took a swing at my thesis. Okay, I'm swinging back - and I'm swinging back with the "Fiery Sword of Truth" as well!

Here's the first one:

Hi reggie, love the independance of the blog. Couldnt help but wonder though, as to if the big 5 were really cross exposed to that degree. Surely hedge funds, private banks, real world commodity producers etc are other swap counter parties that you fail to include in your calculations. 1.7 trillion of unlevered hedge fund assets arent included anywhere for a start. How about other smaller banks too, that dont show up in the comparison, maybe there is more diversification than you think.