This is my response to an inciteful insightful comment posted by GJK313. It is in reference to an article which readers can find here, titled "FASB Surrenders - America Win". I suggest readers read the aforelinked document in its entirety before moving on. Notice how this is written by economists and analysts, not real world investors that are investing THEIR OWN CAPITAL! When I state "own capital" I mean their money, and not that of their clients. I cannot fathom how anyone who had their own money at stake would ever want more ambiguity in pricing assets, in lieu of less.. Let me pick this apart...

"Somehow it believes that marking everything to market (even when that market is illiquid) will somehow make the world a better and safer place"
Well, when the market is illiquid, the assets in said market have a lower market value. It really is that simple.
"Somehow it believes that marking everything to market (even when that market is illiquid) will somehow make the world a better and safer place"
Yes, because if said banks had to liquidate their loans the only place to liquidate them would be said "illiquid" market. This goes to show you how the value of the loans are probably highly overstated by those such as the authors of this article. Guarantee me that no bank will ever go bust again - guarantee me that no bank will never, ever need to sell assets, and I will soften my stance some on mark to market accounting. Until then...
"banks will be allowed to carry loans on their books at amortized cost, reflecting cash flow (payments), as well as reasonable estimates of likely loan losses."
This should now mean that the price of all unsecured loans should drop immediately and dramatically for all consumers, for FASB and these authors are not differentiating between loans backed by collateral and loans not backed by collateral. Many formerly overcollateralized real estate loans are now partially or fully unsecured due to the collapse of real estate "Values" and "Prices" (yes, there is a difference). They are also not taking into consideration the financial and strategic advantages of defaulting on a loan against an asset with negative equity. So, if the banks can now benefit from pricing loans at will (as the authors stated, "reasonable estimates of likely loan losses" - who will make these estimates?), regardless of collateral, why shouldn't that benefit be passed onto the consumer and allow them to enjoy said valuation/pricing perks. Picture me going to a bank and saying, "Just loan me $4 million with nothing hard to back it for no more than you charge that guy with a 40% overcollateralized loan. You can't charge me more since I will keep my payments current and you will be able to make a "reasonable estimate" of the losses, of which of course there will be none because.... Well, just because!"
Does this scenario make any sense to you?
Published in BoomBustBlog

If you recall from my earlier rants on the Case Shiller index, one of its most glaring flaws is that it doesn't capture condo prices, which are a material component of housing stock in NYC and many major urban centers - see The Real Trend in US Housing Prices… It appears as if someone over there was listening, S&P now publishes a condo specific index, although that index too has many of the flaws of the CS single family index - see "Those Who Blindly Follow Housing Prices Without Taking Other Metrics Into Consideration Are Missing the Housing Depression of the New Millennium" and “

Well, NYC, according to the S&P Case Shiller Condo index, is the only major US condo market that not only has firming prices but is actually increasing in price. Chatter and anecdotal evidence from the ground confirms this as developers and speculators are once again bidding up development land, lots and potential conversion properties.

The interactive version - drag the time line at the bottom of the graph to alter the perspective...

Published in BoomBustBlog

A while back, I posted a piece aptly named “Doesn’t Morgan Stanley Read My Blog?”, wherein I lamented on the fact that I made very clear in 2007 that anyone who bought the Sam Zell/Blackstone flips were guaranteed to lose money. It was literally etched in stone for anyone with an objective view and a calculator. I actually believe it was a miracle that Blackstone didn’t lose their shirt. Well, guess who bought those buildings on behalf of their clients as they raked in the fees (see ). You guessed it. None other than Morgan Stanley. This purchase was a 100% equity loss. The entire client fund apparently lost about 61% of the shareholder’s money. See this WSJ article: Morgan Stanley Property Fund Faces $5.4 Billion Loss.

Well, Morgan Stanley's profitable (from a fee perspective) Real Estate division is in the news again. Bloomberg reports, Paulson Group Said to Seize Some CNL Hotels From Morgan Stanley:

Published in BoomBustBlog

This mornings news flow is essentially a "Didn't Reggie tell us this in full detail up to two years ago" fest. Indebted Europe is falling apart for the new year just a day after the liquidity driven romp in equities. The Portugal T-Bill Yield Almost Doubles in Auction, from 3 months ago. The yield Portugal pays on its debt has increased 522% since this last year. This is after the Pan-European bailout fund was announced and implemented to put an end to such pressures. Alas.... The best laid plans. CNBC reports, as does Bloomberg:

Portugal sold six-month bills today, the first of Europe’s high-deficit nations to test investor demand in 2011 after the threat of default forced Greece and Ireland to seek bailouts last year. The government debt agency, known as IGCP, auctioned 500 million euros ($665 million) of bills repayable in July. The yield jumped to 3.686 percent from 2.045 percent at a sale of similar maturity securities in September, with investors bidding for 2.6 times the amount offered. A year ago, the country paid just 0.592 percent to borrow for six months.

Yeah, this is sustainable. What is so interesting that mathematically, a default is definitely in the Portuguese cards, but the mains stream media does not drill down on this. Why? We, at BoomBustBlog have literally given away a complete mathematical analysis that shows the default happening - in real time, and for free. See The Anatomy of a Portugal Default: A Graphical Step by Step Guide to the Beginning of the Largest String of Sovereign Defaults in Recent History Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 and The Truth Behind Portugal’s Inevitable Default – Arithmetic Evidence Available Only Through BoomBustBlog Monday, December 6th, 2010. The line of default demarcation has been drawn in the sand t 2013, but does anyone truly believe that all of these deeply indebted states will float for that long. Could you imagine your interest rates rising over 500% and continue to climb during YOUR time of need?

Published in BoomBustBlog

Zerohedge has brought attention (in their own very colorful fashion) to a Pimm Fox interview of Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc. on Bloomberg. It is well worth the 12 minutes of your time. Here are some choice quotes form the interview as excerpted by ZH:

"I am not surprised by the strength of retail sales, because i knew that 30% of consumers are responsible for retail sales, and these 30% did much better because of the performance of capital markets. I don't think it is indicative of anything going forward. I don't think the economy is going to get any better. If you look at our fiscal and monetary policy, we went two trillion in the hole last year. Two trillion... to produce this... and unemployment went up to 9.8%! We've spent two trillion we're printing money we're going bananas. Our balance sheet, we've got $2.6 trillion on there, and what;s on there government securities, and MBS."

..."If interest rates go up a point Bernanke's bankrupt. Everything he's bought is underwater. All the MBS are underwater, the whole country is underwater."
Published in BoomBustBlog

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...

Published in BoomBustBlog

The FDIC bank data from the 2nd quarter reveals that banks, despite extend and pretend, regulator passes, and kick the can down the road policies, are still feeling the CRE crunch. Notice the "Construction and land development" line below. Nearly 15% of bank assets are in non-accrual status (dead money), almost 6% charged off, and merely 6.24% recoverable.

Published in BoomBustBlog

Back in September of 2007 when I was preparing to launch a hedge fund, I came up with this interesting name for a blog. It was BoomBustBlog. What made it interesting is that I can literally blog ad infinitum on the synthetically crafted booms and busts of the global economy, for the method of shepherding the economy in this day and age is actually predicated on the existence and/or creation of Booms and Busts. Of course, from my common sense perspective, one would think that the job of a central banker would be to ameliorate the effects of, and in time eliminate booms and busts... Apparently, that doesn't appear to be the flavor du jour. As a matter of fact, it appears as if central bankers are doing the exact opposite. Of course, attempting to cure a bust with a boom, or worse yet attempting to prevent a boom from busting with another boom is a recipe for disaster, and worse yet the probability of success is close to nil, yet central bankers try anyway. This leads to overt and explicit policy errors, which leads to outsized profit opportunities to those who pay attention. Enter "The Great Global Macro Experiment, Revisited", from which I will excerpt below. Please keep in mind that this article was written in October of 2008, and turned out to be quite prescient, I will annotate in bold parentheticals the portions of particularly prescient relevance. The original macro experiment piece was posted on my blog in September of 2007... For those that are interested, I plan on discussing this topic live on Bloomberg TV today: “Street Smart” with Matt Miller & Carol Massar at 3:30 pm.

Published in BoomBustBlog

Last year I took the readers of my blog through a visual tour of the condo market in NY from Chelsea Pier to Prospect Park Brooklyn. Even the born and bred NYers were flabbergasted. See (again) "Who are ya gonna believe, the pundits or your lying eyes?", "Who are you going to believe, the pundits or your lying eyes, part 2". Well, things aren't looking much better a year later. They are still doing construction next to sites that still can't sell out their inventory next to sites that are falling into disrepair due to unpaid maintenance charges, next to sites that owe the city money, next to... You probably get my drift by now.

Well, the WSJ reports...

Trump SoHo, the flashy 46-story downtown hotel and condominium, is taking another unusual step to boost sluggish condo sales—offering substantial discounts to buyers who have already signed contracts but not yet closed.

These discount offers run to around 25% of the agreed-upon purchase price, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. They're being used as a special encouragement to convince buyers who might be getting cold feet to close their deals.

Discounts are being offered to prod Trump SoHo buyers to close.

Rodrigo Nino, president of Prodigy International, the sales and marketing company for Trump SoHo, declined to discuss the size of the discounts or how many buyers have accepted them. He said Trump SoHo "is not unilaterally offering concessions. The requests have been handled on a case-by-case basis."

Even taking into account these markdowns, Mr. Nino added, "the average net closing price is in excess of $2,500 per square foot."

The price cuts aren't the first measure Trump SoHo has taken to get committed buyers to close on their deals. The developers, the Sapir Organization and Bayrock Group, are putting together a plan to offer direct financing to potential buyers who can't secure enough credit to purchases condos. Mr. Nino said the program would be implemented "shortly."

Published in BoomBustBlog

Bloomberg writes, Blackstone Returns Fees to Investors in First Clawback Triggered at Firm, I excerpt below:

Aug. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP is refunding some performance fees earned during the commercial real estate boom, the first time fund investors have clawed back cash from executives at the world’s largest private-equity company.

Blackstone and some of its managers returned $3 million in carried interest to investors in Blackstone Real Estate Partners International LP during the second quarter, said a person with knowledge of the payments. They may pay back an estimated $15.7 million this quarter to another fund, Blackstone Real Estate Partners IV, according to the person and a regulatory filing.

Blackstone’s property buyout funds recorded performance fees totaling $1.74 billion, some of which was allocated to the firm’s partners, as the market for office towers, hotels and apartments soared from 2004 to 2007. Prices have slumped about 39 percent since then, leaving New York-based Blackstone and its rivals in a position similar to that of venture capital firms about a decade ago, when the collapse of technology stocks forced them to return profits earned on Internet companies during the 1990s.

“The acute situation for clawbacks is when you have had a very successful period of gains and then the remaining deals don’t do well,” said Michael Harrell, co-head of the private funds practice at the New York-based law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. “That is what happened when the Internet bubble burst and there is certainly the potential for that with the sharp downturn in the real estate market.”

Clawback Provisions

Private-equity funds, which raise money from institutions including pensions and endowments, pay a share of profits from investments, usually 20 percent, to the firm and its investment managers. If the fund’s remaining holdings suffer a permanent decline in value, clawback provisions can require the executives to rebate cash distributions in order to prevent their share of profits from exceeding the 20 percent.

Published in BoomBustBlog