Displaying items by tag: Obama

Well, it looks like Blankein, Dimon, et. al. really should have tried harder to make that meeting with the President a couple of weeks ago. It appeared as if he may have had something important to discuss. As my readers and subscribers know, I have been very bearish on the big money center banks since 2007, and quite profitably so. The last 3 quarters saw a much larger trend reversal than I expected, that resulted in the disgorgement of a decent amount of those profits - a disgorgement that I am still beating myself up over. You see, as a fundamental investor, I don't do well when reality diverges from the fundamentals for too long a period. Luckily for me, fundamentals always return, and they usually return with a vengeance. To keep things in perspective though, I am still up on a cumulative basis many, many multiples over the S&P (which is still negative, may I add) as well as your average fund manager. Why? How was I able to do this? Well, its not because I am supersmart, or well connected. It is because I keep things in perspective. Those that look at the records that I publish say, "Well he was down the last couple of quarters, so..." while disregarding what happened the 8 or even 40 or so quarters before that. Such a short term horizon will probably not be able to appreciate the longer term perspective and foresight that enabled me to see this entire malaise coming years ago and profit from it. No, I am not perfect and I do mess up on occasion, but I also do pay attention to the facts.

These facts pointed to a massive overvalutation in banks throughout the bulk of last year, again! I made it clear to my subscribers that the banks simply have too many things going against them: political headwinds, nasty assets, diminishing revenue drivers, over-indebted consumers, and a soft economic cycle. I also warned explicitly that I didn't think Obama would be nearly as lenient on the banks as Bush was. Well, the headwinds are stiffening. On that note, let's take an empirical look at just what this means in terms of valuation (note, I will following this up with a full forensic re-valuation for all subscribers, incuding a scenario analysis of varying extents of principal trading limits). Some of these banks are I-N-S-A-N-E-L-Y overvalued at these post bear market rally levels considering the aforementioned headwinds. Methinks fundamental analysis will make a comeback in a big way for 2010 as it meets the momentum and algo traders in a mutual BEAR feast on the big investment banks cum hedge funds. I can't guarantee it will happen, but the numbers dictate that it should. We shall see in the upcoming quarters.

We have retrieved information about trading revenues for GS, MS, JPM and BoFA. We have also retrieved some balance sheet data to reflect the trend in investment holdings and the level of leverage, but I will address that in a future post for the sake of expediency. While the banks don't break out the P&L for principal trading, we can sort of back into it. Remember, traders are fed bonuses off of net revenue, not profit.

Well, it looks like Blankein, Dimon, et. al. really should have tried harder to make that meeting with the President a couple of weeks ago. It appeared as if he may have had something important to discuss. As my readers and subscribers know, I have been very bearish on the big money center banks since 2007, and quite profitably so. The last 3 quarters saw a much larger trend reversal than I expected, that resulted in the disgorgement of a decent amount of those profits - a disgorgement that I am still beating myself up over. You see, as a fundamental investor, I don't do well when reality diverges from the fundamentals for too long a period. Luckily for me, fundamentals always return, and they usually return with a vengeance. To keep things in perspective though, I am still up on a cumulative basis many, many multiples over the S&P (which is still negative, may I add) as well as your average fund manager. Why? How was I able to do this? Well, its not because I am supersmart, or well connected. It is because I keep things in perspective. Those that look at the records that I publish say, "Well he was down the last couple of quarters, so..." while disregarding what happened the 8 or even 40 or so quarters before that. Such a short term horizon will probably not be able to appreciate the longer term perspective and foresight that enabled me to see this entire malaise coming years ago and profit from it. No, I am not perfect and I do mess up on occasion, but I also do pay attention to the facts.

These facts pointed to a massive overvalutation in banks throughout the bulk of last year, again! I made it clear to my subscribers that the banks simply have too many things going against them: political headwinds, nasty assets, diminishing revenue drivers, over-indebted consumers, and a soft economic cycle. I also warned explicitly that I didn't think Obama would be nearly as lenient on the banks as Bush was. Well, the headwinds are stiffening. On that note, let's take an empirical look at just what this means in terms of valuation (note, I will following this up with a full forensic re-valuation for all subscribers, incuding a scenario analysis of varying extents of principal trading limits). Some of these banks are I-N-S-A-N-E-L-Y overvalued at these post bear market rally levels considering the aforementioned headwinds. Methinks fundamental analysis will make a comeback in a big way for 2010 as it meets the momentum and algo traders in a mutual BEAR feast on the big investment banks cum hedge funds. I can't guarantee it will happen, but the numbers dictate that it should. We shall see in the upcoming quarters.

We have retrieved information about trading revenues for GS, MS, JPM and BoFA. We have also retrieved some balance sheet data to reflect the trend in investment holdings and the level of leverage, but I will address that in a future post for the sake of expediency. While the banks don't break out the P&L for principal trading, we can sort of back into it. Remember, traders are fed bonuses off of net revenue, not profit.

I have been advocating this limitation for some time.

For those that listen to CNBC pundits knocking the separation of deposit taking entities from trading risk assuming entities, here are some common sense rebuttals.

This proposal would not have stopped the AIG failure

No, it would not have. It would have prevented deposit taking institutions such as Citibank and JP Morgan from trading on a speculative basis with AIG though. Theoretically, it would have allowed those that would have got jerked on the AIG to have sunk or swam on their own accord. We never had to stop AIG, we had to stop the repercussions of what an AIG would have caused.

I have been advocating this limitation for some time.

For those that listen to CNBC pundits knocking the separation of deposit taking entities from trading risk assuming entities, here are some common sense rebuttals.

This proposal would not have stopped the AIG failure

No, it would not have. It would have prevented deposit taking institutions such as Citibank and JP Morgan from trading on a speculative basis with AIG though. Theoretically, it would have allowed those that would have got jerked on the AIG to have sunk or swam on their own accord. We never had to stop AIG, we had to stop the repercussions of what an AIG would have caused.

Saturday, 25 April 2009 00:00

It appears as if Obama is getting real. Good.

Everybody on this blog was explicitly warned about this in regards to Goldman. This weekend, I will go through some the other banks in granular detail, as well.

From Bloomberg: Regulators May Make Banks Raise Capital Levels With Stress-Test Accounting

Financial regulators may force many of the largest U.S. banks to raise new capital or conserve extra cash after accounting for assets held off their balance sheets.

The Federal Reserve yesterday released the methods used in stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks, which incorporated an accounting proposal that would bring about $900 billion onto lenders’ books. there is no reason why GS should not be tanking now. They knew this was coming which is why they decided to sell a secondary offering at what was near an historical low. To think they actually got enough patsies to buy it.

The accounting change suggests most of the 19 will need to take some action to buttress their capital, analysts said. Stronger banks may keep dividend payments low or apply retained earnings, with others selling new shares to make up the amounts, they said.
Saturday, 25 April 2009 00:00

It appears as if Obama is getting real. Good.

Everybody on this blog was explicitly warned about this in regards to Goldman. This weekend, I will go through some the other banks in granular detail, as well.

From Bloomberg: Regulators May Make Banks Raise Capital Levels With Stress-Test Accounting

Financial regulators may force many of the largest U.S. banks to raise new capital or conserve extra cash after accounting for assets held off their balance sheets.

The Federal Reserve yesterday released the methods used in stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks, which incorporated an accounting proposal that would bring about $900 billion onto lenders’ books. there is no reason why GS should not be tanking now. They knew this was coming which is why they decided to sell a secondary offering at what was near an historical low. To think they actually got enough patsies to buy it.

The accounting change suggests most of the 19 will need to take some action to buttress their capital, analysts said. Stronger banks may keep dividend payments low or apply retained earnings, with others selling new shares to make up the amounts, they said.