Home » January, 2011 Entries posted on “January, 2011”

Mubarak rallies on Intrade

Is there a bull market in brutal Egyptian dictators?

There is Monday. The odds of an imminent departure by Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, declined on Intrade, which makes a market in bets on political, sports and entertainment events.

Trading at distressed levels

The bulls aren’t exactly running wild, mind you. The market is putting the odds at 3 in 5, or 60%, that Mubarak will depart by Feb. 28, Intrade shows. That’s down from 3 in 4 odds as of yesterday.

The improvement comes as demonstrations continue against Mubarak, if with less bloodshed. The relative calm has helped feed a recovery in financial markets, which were hit hard Friday by news of riots with heavy casualties.

The Mubarak Intrade rally also comes in spite of comments from former President Jimmy Carter that suggest the end is near. Mubarak has run Egypt for 30 years but may be at the end of his reign, Carter said.

Carter called the uprising in Egypt the “most profound situation in the Middle East since I left office.” He said Sunday his “guess is Mubarak will have to leave,” according to reports.

Of course, it’s no surprise the Intrade numbers would ignore Carter’s take. After all, he’s not a betting man. (Hat-tip alea)


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 31 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »

How Egypt spells oil spike

Egypt may not cause an oil shock this week. But trends that have been playing out there for decades show why another bruising bout with sky-high prices may be unavoidable.

Let’s assume that unrest in the world’s No. 27 exporter will be contained, keeping the current U.S. price of a barrel of crude nearer $90 than $100. For now, that’s good news for a global economic expansion that’s addicted to the stuff.

Bad trends for oil guzzlers

But a look at Egypt’s oil profile (see chart, right) is hardly an uplifting experience. Production has been sliding for two decades, while domestic use has been rising at a higher rate. As a result, a country that in 1990 was able to export something on the order of 400,000 barrels a day is now a small net importer.

You surely don’t care that Egypt is addicted to foreign oil. But the upshot of its switch to net petroleum consumption is that other, bigger oil addicts – such as the United States, which you may well care about – will inevitably find themselves fighting over a smaller supply of global oil exports. The terms of this battle will surely involve higher prices.

This is one reality of so-called peak oil — a school of thought that contends, over the loud objections of Exxon (XOM) et al., that global crude production has likely gone as high as it will.

A diminishing supply of oil exports is bad enough news for big consumers like the United States. But what really stands to tighten the screws on oil fiends is the rising demand for that shrinking supply, driven by the head over heels growth of everyone’s two favorite emerging market economies, China and India.

Squaring the shrinking oil export market with the surging global demand for fuel, we have something called peak export theory. This camp argues that we are doomed to a steady, double-digit annual rise in oil prices till the global economy, like Roberto Duran in New Orleans, finally whimpers “no mas” — at which point a recession will send prices down to a lower if still excruciatingly high level.

Oil at $200 in the boom and $120 in the bust? It seems outlandish, but remember, oil cost just $9 and change in December 1998 and just $16 three years later, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Since 1998, it has risen at a 14% annual compound clip. At that rate, why not look at the stratosphere?

How high will it go?

“Egypt is a perfect case history for peak export theory,” said Jeffrey J. Brown, a Dallas area petroleum geologist who has been making this case on the oil drum and other oil publications. “We’re only going to see prices rise as more and more exporters slide down the curve toward being importers.”

Brown contends Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter in the world and the third-biggest supplier to the United States, after Canada and Mexico, is already sliding down this curve. He notes that since Saudi crude production hit its recent high in 2005 near 10 million barrels a day, output is off 3% while domestic use is up 7%.

The result? A 6% decline in Saudi exports, over a span in which the average price of oil has risen from the mid-$50s into the $80s and $90s.

Many observers assume Saudi Arabia maintains spare capacity that it could call into use should prices rise too high. But Brown notes that while Saudi Arabia responded to the 2000-2005 oil price runup by raising output, it hasn’t done so in response to the price surge of the past five years.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s production over the past five years has fallen short of its indicated 2005 capacity by some 2 billion barrels, he said.

“Something changed in early 2006,” said Brown.

He estimates the global pool of available net oil exports could shrink to 27 million barrels a day in 2015 from 41 million barrels in 2005, thanks to slowing production and a surge in demand from India and China.

Under this scenario, Brown says, the two biggest developing nations will slurp up nearly a third of global oil exports by 2015 – tripling their share in 2005.

Can prices keep rising well into the triple digits without sending the global economy off the rails? It’s possible it can, he contends, if you take a look at oil consumption over the past dozen years or so.

While U.S. consumption is basically flat with 1998 levels, oil use has surged in China, India, Morocco and Kenya, to name a few. It figures to keep rising in those places because energy consumption there fuels real growth — something that has been in short supply here of late.

“Developing countries have been outbidding us for oil,” he said.

So if you think $3-a-gallon gas is a problem, imagine what fuel prices might be in 2015, if the world develops the way Brown expects. Of course, there is a bright spot, sort of.

“Our forecast is that the U.S. is well on the way to becoming ‘free’ of its dependence on foreign oil,” Brown says. “Just not in the way that many people anticipated.”


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 31 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »

Fannie and Freddie’s biggest deadbeats

Leaning on the megabanks can pay off, if you’ve got a little muscle and a lot of patience.

Banks had paid $21 billion through this past summer to repurchase souring home loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-backed mortgage companies, under contracts that oblige lenders or loan servicers to buy back loans that aren’t up to snuff.

Loan repurchasers

Have the banks had their fill?

That covers about 13% of the mortgage companies’ credit losses since their government takeover, according to a report released this month by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (see pages 224-225).

Yet it’s just a sliver of the $529 billion of profits U.S. banks booked during the heyday of the housing bubble, between 2003 and 2006 – and it may be just a small fraction of the sums they will fork over in looming mortgage battles with insurers and private investors.

Estimates of bank exposure to so-called private label mortgage putbacks run into the tens of billions. Settling remaining claims by Fannie and Freddie, by contrast, may not cost much more than a few billion — which makes it that much more exasperating to see the banks playing their foot-dragging games.

The bank that has gotten the most bad mortgages bounced back to it by Fannie and Freddie is, no surprise, Bank of America (BAC), the North Carolina-based owner of the notorious Countrywide subprime mill. Over the past four years, it got $6.9 billion in repurchase requests from Fannie alone – as much as its next four competitors combined.

Data released by the FCIC show the bank paid Fannie and Freddie almost $6 billion over the past four years to settle mortgage repurchase requests (see chart, right) – and that was before the settlement this month under which it forked over an added $2.8 billion.

Yet despite that show of comity, the banks aren’t going quietly. For every three bad loans repurchased as of September, there were two more requests from Fannie and Freddie that the banks hadn’t honored.

That number has come down some since Bank of America and Ally, formerly known as GMAC, agreed to settlements with Fannie and Freddie. Even so, some $10 billion of repurchase requests remain open – and there is some evidence the banks have been dragging their feet in paying up.

As of September, about a third of the outstanding repurchase requests issued by Fannie and Freddie had been outstanding for at least four months, the companies said in their latest quarterly filings with regulators. Banks, “including many of our larger seller/servicers, have not fully performed their repurchase obligations in a timely manner,” Freddie noted in its filing.

The firm went on to say the banks’ tardiness had caused it to “begun to require certain of our larger seller/servicers to commit to plans for completing repurchases, with financial consequences or with stated remedies for non-compliance, as part of the annual renewals of our contracts with them.”

The struggles of Fannie and Freddie to collect on their repurchase demands are remarkable because rules are on the government-sponsored entities’ side. The contracts they sign with mortgage originators and servicers give Fannie and Freddie the clear right to force bankers to buy back loans that fail to meet the companies’ guidelines.

By contrast, the rules in private label disputes – ones pitting the banks with investors such as pension funds that bought mortgage-backed bonds without Fannie and Freddie’s involvement – are much murkier, a situation the banks expect to use to their advantage.

Even so, analysts at Deutsche Bank, for instance, expect Bank of America to shell out $15 billion or so to settle private label mortgage disputes in coming years — well above the $9 billion analysts expect it to pay to settle its Fannie-Freddie liabilities. That’s because the underwriting on the private label bonds tends to have been so much worse, which has translated into many more suspicious-looking early defaults to make good on.

In contrast, the numbers presented in the FCIC report make most of the big banks’ exposure to Fannie Mae mortgage repurchases look downright manageable. Were they to settle on the same terms as BofA, for instance, Wells Fargo (WFC) would pay Fannie $321 million, Citi (C) $247 million and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) $193 million. Unlike Fannie, Freddie Mac didn’t disclose outstanding repurchase requests by bank in its FCIC submissions.

But now that the worst actor, Countrywide, has cleared up many of its disputes with the GSEs, the stakes are apparently so low that no one is in a hurry to settle.

“It’s kind of the moot point, but if [Fannie and Freddie] wanted to settle it all at once, it’d be fine with us,” JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon said this month on the bank’s conference call.


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 31 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »

High-speed 8-bit A/D Converters Deliver Best-in-Class Power and Noise Performance

Watch More Videos from:
BusinessWire at

January 31 2011 | Posted in Company News | Read More »

Online Video Distribution Network goviral Acquired by AOL Europe

Watch More Videos from:
BusinessWire at

January 31 2011 | Posted in Company News | Read More »

Money for nothing at Goldman

America’s favorite bankers have outdone themselves yet again.

How might you compensate management for a year in which profits plunged, you spent $550 million of shareholder money to settle a fraud investigation and your stock ended up more or less exactly where it started (see chart, right)?

Pay? Sure. Performance? Not so much

You might be tempted to nix raises or withhold bonuses to send a responsible message about linking pay to performance. But if so, you wouldn’t be Goldman Sachs (GS).

It just had the year described above – and responded by tripling everyone’s base salary while boosting bonuses by 40%. Is this a great country or what?

Goldman said in a filing Friday afternoon that CEO Lloyd Blankfein will make $2 million this year, and his top lieutenants will each make $1.85 million. Top Goldman brass had been making $600,000 annually in salary since the firm’s 1999 initial public offering.

All 470 of Goldman’s partners will get higher salaries. The top five officers will also get $12.6 million each in bonuses, paid in restricted shares that can’t be sold for five years. That’s up from $9 million each last year.

That may seem like a high price to pay for a pretty lousy year – and one that ended with a Fed-inspired reminder that Goldman, just in case anyone forgot, took billions upon billions of dollars in bailout loans in 2008 and 2009.

But conveniently for the bankers at Goldman and many other firms, Wall Street’s compensation goalposts have been moved in just as they were getting harder to reach.

Goldman and many of its rivals were hit in the second half of last year by weak trading numbers and rising costs, as they hired more people to gear up for tougher markets in 2011. Those trends naturally penalized profits. At Goldman, profit tumbled 38% from a year ago in 2010, on a 13% revenue decline.

But lucky for hot shot banking types, the big issue with banker pay nowadays is not linking pay with performance. It’s keeping the bankers from blowing the economy up again.

Regulators led by the Federal Reserve are now pushing for higher salaries and lower, stretched-out bonuses in a bid to discourage the banks from gambling for huge short-term rewards, as they did so disastrously during the housing bubble that ended with the meltdown of 2008.

The idea is to limit the payment of giant, one-time bonuses that later turn out to have been based on fictitious profits, as was seen at places like Merrill Lynch during the bubble. Federal regulators issued 47 pages of guidance last June laying out the rules banks must follow in setting bonuses. They didn’t issue any guidance on salaries.

“Banking organizations are responsible for ensuring that their incentive compensation arrangements do not encourage imprudent risk-taking behavior and are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization,” the document said.

After the bailouts of 2008, the focus on holding down risk-taking is understandable. But the history of executive pay is that every supposed reform leads to a new, unexpected abuse.

It is early yet to say that will be the case here. Even with the raises, Goldman’s 2011 payouts stand to be just a fraction of the go-go days, when Blankfein, president Gary Cohn and finance chief David Viniar each regularly racked up $40 million or more in bonuses and stock awards in a given year.

But even if the top bankers’ pay is down, their sense of entitlement is back at bubbly levels. Cohn launched into a diatribe last week about the dangers of, get this, bailing out institutions less worthy than the banks.

“What I most worry about,” said Cohn, “is that in the next cycle, as the regulatory pendulum swings, we are going to have to use taxpayer money to bail out unregulated businesses that, unlike the banks in the last crisis, may not be able to repay them.”

Yes, the banks have repaid us. It can’t be long till they find a way to, ahem, repay themselves too.


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 30 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »

Davos 2011: Edelman CEO on Consumer Empowerment

Watch More Videos from:
forbes at

January 30 2011 | Posted in Market Update | Read More »

28 Jan 2011 Adecoagro Visits the NYSE To Celebrate IPO rang NYSE Closing Bell

Watch More Videos from:
nysetv1 at

January 29 2011 | Posted in NYSE | Read More »

BankUnited can’t break private equity drought

The BankUnited IPO scored big, but private equity types are still lamenting their failure to make a bigger dent in the bank buyout racket.

BankUnited (BKU) raised $786 million selling 29 million shares to the public, two years after its collapse and subsequent takeover by a group led by Blackstone, Carlyle, Centerbridge and Wilbur Ross. Those four investors netted more than $600 million by selling shares in Friday’s initial public offering, which values BankUnited at $2.6 billion.

Wilbur Ross: impeccable timing

That’s a nice check for a few years’ work. But the private equity industry has spent the past few years grumbling that there aren’t more such deals available on their terms, thanks to what they see as the reluctance of regulators to sign off on deals with a group they haven’t always held in high regard.

“A number of opportunities have been stalled at the Fed or the FDIC,” said Hal Reichwald, a banking lawyer who represents private equity buyers at Manatt Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles. “You have to think the Fed continues to believe private equity is just a bad thing.”

Of course, there is some so-called headline risk for regulators in sanctioning a deal that enriches investors so quickly after a bank failed at great cost to the federal deposit insurance fund. BankUnited will cost the FDIC fund billions but turned profitable just months after its 2009  takeover, thanks in part to an FDIC deal to pick up billions of dollars in loan losses.

Beyond that, regulators remain concerned about the prospect of fast money types rushing in for a quick killing and then leaving taxpayers on the hook for a big cleanup bill, as has happened once or twice.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2009 cleared rules that hold private equity buyers to a higher capital standard and force them to hold bank investments for at least three years. Those come on top of existing laws that limit bank ownership by nonbank entities and expose bank backers to unlimited losses, the better for providing an incentive to make good loans.

Private equity types had hoped to gain some leverage with the flood of banking assets that came onto the FDIC’s books in recent years as bank failures picked up. Some 300 banks have failed since 2008, and the value of assets the FDIC has yet to dispose of rose 30% in the last year to a record $50 billion.

Yet regulators have shown little sign of giving in. Of the 20 biggest private-equity banking takeouts since 2006, just three, totaling $587 million, were announced last year, according to Dealogic.

That compares with five big deals announced in 2009 (including the $900 million BankUnited buyout), totaling $6.6 billion, and six big deals announced in 2008 totaling $6.3 billion.

The slow pace of private equity bank purchases, together with the near paucity of new bank charters issued last year and the long decline of the number of U.S. banks, suggest regulators may be prepared to permit a deeper industry shakeout.

“You would think private equity would provide one way to restructure viable banking institutions,” said Reichwald. “But you don’t see that happening, so maybe the answer is they are pressing for fewer banks.”


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 29 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »

Nastiest CEO lashes out at Goldman

It is hard to know who to root for in this one.

Overstock.com (OSTK), the struggling online retailer headed by America’s nastiest CEO, has upped the stakes in a long-running legal battle with two of America’s least-beloved bailout recipients, Goldman Sachs (GS) and the Merrill Lynch unit of Bank of America (BAC).

Byrne, baby, Byrne

Overstock said it made a filing with a New Jersey court allowing it to seek triple damages in its 2007 suit against the brokers. The firms now have 30 days to challenge or answer the amended complaint, Overstock said, and a trial is set for December. Goldman declined to comment and BofA didn’t immediately comment.

Not surprisingly, Overstock’s suit claims the brokerage firms conspired to drive down the company’s price via so-called naked short-selling – the practice of selling a stock without first locating shares that can be borrowed to close the transaction out. Overstock’s nasty CEO, Patrick Byrne, has spent years on a shrill crusade against naked short selling.

This has drawn catcalls from his many critics, who say his company’s stock price is better explained by the retailer’s poor business performance. The company made $8 million in 2009, but it has lost $256 million since its creation and “we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future,” Overstock warns in its latest annual report with regulators.

The losses have done nothing to quiet Byrne, certainly. He said in 2003 that “when opportunities come along where we can knee the shorts in the groin, that’s always good for fun and amusement,” and his comment in Thursday’s press release is similarly combative.

“I am really going to enjoy watching Goldman Sachs try to justify its nefarious schemes to a jury box with 12 Americans in it,” he said. Byrne is likely overstating his own case there. Still, it will be interesting to see what happens when an irrational force collides with an irredeemable object.


Filed under: Street Sweep

Read More Stock Market Blogs from:

January 29 2011 | Posted in Finance Blog | Read More »