What The US Population Is Most Concerned About

Contrary to ongoing attempts by the administration to refocus the public’s attention on such focal points as guns, an imminent external cybersecurity threat (until it was revealed that the biggest cyber terrorist is the NSA itself), and climate change, the three still remain, pardon the pan, at the cold end of the spectrum when it comes to what issues most concern the US public. On the other end, for one decade and counting, the “top priority” for the US public was and continues to be “the economy”, stupid.

And since “the stock market” did not have its own separate category, we can only assume that to most American leaders, the economy and stocks continue to be interchangeable, even though as we have shown over the past 5 years, the broader public – also known as the ‘retail’ investor – has largely shied away from the stock market entirely either because of the realization that it is a rigged casino benefiting a choice group of Wall Street (neither admitted nor denied) criminals, or simply because as the middle class expires, ever fewer Americans have the disposable income to wager on 1,000x forward P/E gambling chips, promises of untold riches by the Fed chair(wo)man notwithstanding.

Some more from Third Way which broke down the numbers sourced from Pew:

Headlines and breaking news may drive news cycles, but according to Pew Research Center polling, the public’s #1 “top priority” has remained steadfast over the past nine years: “Strengthening the U.S. Economy.” Proving that James Carville’s blunt admonishment is as true today as it was back in 1992.

 

To illustrate how other top public priorities have shifted, we’ve created a heat map of 2013 priorities, which you can use to track the public mindset through three presidential elections and the wave midterms of 2010.

The heatmap is shown below. However, since the poll did not account for either Dancing with the Stars, X-Factor, reality TV, or Sunday Night Football, we would take anything shown below with a substantial grain of salt.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/oNcAgpc1vqI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

5 Ways To Profit From A China Downturn In 2014

Is China’s economy headed for a crash in 2014? It’s an extreme question that would be laughed at by many. After all, most believe that China is the world’s new powerhouse off the back of near 10% annual growth over the past decade. And the vast majority of economists and policymakers are sanguine about the country’s economic prospects, pointing to still healthy data and confidence in recently-announced structural reforms to steer China in the right direction.

But as Asia Confidential outlined in a recent postthe bulls’ arguments are looking much weaker post two spasms of credit stress.  And there are four crucial things that these arguments seem to ignore: 1) the investment-driven, debt-laden economic model of China simply isn’t sustainable 2) extraordinary credit growth is yielding less and less benefit as investment returns deteriorate 3) the recent spikes in inter-bank rates and high-profile debt defaults (China Everbright Bank) and bankruptcies (coal mining group, Liansheng Resources Group) point to severe stresses within the financial system 4) the structural reforms are a long-term positive, but short-term net-negative for the economy.

For the record, we’re not predicting a China crash this year. We’ll leave sure-fire predictions (which are often wrong) to others. What we are suggesting though is the odds appear to favour a more serious economic downturn in China over the next few years. And that those odds have increased given recent events.

Today we’re going to look at the bulls’ views in depth and what’s wrong with them. We’ll also delve into the countries and sectors which seem most vulnerable to a China downturn. While the Chinese stock market has been a dog for years and told a large tale about the country, many of those most reliant – either directly or indirectly – on China investment demand still seem to be priced for better times ahead.

The bull case
First, let’s take a look at the bull case for China’s economic prospects. In simple terms, it goes something like this:

1) GDP growth accelerated in the third quarter to 7.8%, up from 7.5% in the prior quarter. According to the bulls, this shows that the economy is recovering, or stabilising at worst, thanks to various stimulus measures and government interventions into the inter-bank market.

china-gdp-growth-annual

2) Chinese exports beat forecasts in November, up almost 13%. This indicates that the world’s second-largest economy is benefiting from a recovery in developed markets. That’s important given China’s reliance on exports.

CHINA-EXPORTS-GROWTH-RATES-DEC2012-NOV2013

3) Despite all of the concerns about potential bad debts from the massive 2009 stimulus, non-performing loan (NPL) ratios remain low.

China NPLs -2013

4) The new Chinese leadership announced a bold reform agenda late last year, which should help re-balance the economy away from investments towards consumption. Those positive on China suggest this should be a smooth re-balancing and ensure strong economic growth for years to come.

China reforms - Nov13

5) Most, including this author, think Xi Jinping may be the man to make the tough decisions to propel China’s long-term growth after the previous regime neglected much-needed reform. Clearly, he’s been focused on consolidating his own power; economic reforms should come next.

6) If the economy does suffer a major downturn, China has ample resources to fight such an occurrence, in the form of almost US$3.7 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. This should ensure China doesn’t have the so-called hard economic landing which critics predict.

china-foreign-exchange-reserves

What’s wrong with it
The weaknesses in the bull case are the following:

  • Almost everyone agrees the that export-led economic model used by China over the past 30 years is unsustainable going forward.
  • Previous transitions from export-led models in Japan and South Korea have led to sharply lower economic growth.
  • Faith in government to engineer a smooth economic transition is also contrary to much historical experience.

Let’s run through these one-by-one.

It’s important to understand how China’s economy got to be so big in a short space of time. The speed of economic ascent has no parallel in modern times and it’s been the result of a classic export-led growth model.

What this means is that China has been able to mass produce goods on an unprecedented scale given the appetite for these goods abroad. This has helped lift industrial investment well beyond the level which would be needed if it focused solely on the domestic market. And it’s been aided by a key competitive advantage on the global stage: cheap labor. The end result has been that China has been able to suppress domestic demand and pour resources into investment.

The reason why this export-led model is unsustainable is that China now produces so many goods that the rest of the world cannot possibly absorb them all. China’s gotten to big for its own good, in crude terms.

When the 2008 financial crisis hit, Chinese exports plummeted and the limits of the model became apparent. However, China cushioned the blow by implementing massive stimulus measures. In effect, it sunk even more money into investments, such as infrastructure, property and factories. The problem to this day is there hasn’t been the end-demand for these investments. In other words, export demand has remained soft and domestic demand for goods hasn’t been able to pick up the slack.

And a bigger problem is that the much of the investments via the stimulus were debt-financed, principally to state-owned firms. These firms were deemed less risky by banks.

That’s created an issue for small firms which haven’t had access to bank financing. Given reduced export and domestic demand, they’ve had to resort to financing from outside the banks, the so-called shadow banking system. They’ve had to pay much higher interest rates as a consequence. And it’s widely known that the collateral used for non-bank financing is less-than-solid, on average.

As you may be able to see from the above, the export-led model which China has used over the past 30 years is running into a dead-end. What the new leadership is now trying to do is transition the economy towards more domestic consumption, so that it can perhaps make up for the drop-off in export growth.

The history of transitions from export-led models doesn’t make for pretty reading. These transitions for Japan in 1973 and South Korea in 1991 led to sharp slowdowns in economic growth, as seen in the chart below.

Investment transitions chart

Lastly, faith in the new leadership to deliver a successful transition appears misplaced. As noted above, we think Xi Jinping is the right leader to steer the country for the next decade. And many of his proposed reforms have merit and should help in re-balancing the economy.

However, the fact is that China has hemmed itself into a corner where there are limited solutions in the near-term. Cut back on credit-driven investment and GDP falls sharply. Keep the party going and risk a larger blow-up in the not-too-distant future. Moreover, the bulls conveniently downplay that implementation of structural reforms would be a net-negative for growth in the short run.

As for the argument that China can always use its foreign exchange (forex) reserves to provide further stimulus to prop up the economy, the people who purport this have little knowledge of basic economics.

If China were to use substantial forex reserves in this way, it would become a large net-seller of U.S. Treasury bonds. To prevent a spike in interest rates, the U.S. central bank would have to significantly step up purchases, funded ultimately by private citizens savings. Less of these savings would dampen U.S. consumption and ultimately, Chinese exports to the US.. In other words, a move by China to substantially cut forex reserves would not only be a disaster for the developed world but for China itself.

Are recent events a tipping point?
If you agree that China’s current economic model is unsustainable and that any transition away from it will be difficult, the question then becomes when a more serious downturn may occur. The short answer is that no-one really knows. But recent events are beginning to show severe stresses in the economy. Perhaps a sign of things to come.

First, it’s clear that China is trying to keep the investment boom going to aid GDP growth. Though overall credit growth has slowed somewhat, it’s still likely to be up 20% in 2013. That’s much higher than nominal GDP.

Fitch - China new financing

The continuing credit binge is why property prices in China have remained strong, even though many have seen a bubble in this space for several years.

The problem is that the credit boom is resulting is less bang for the proverbial buck (or yuan in this case). Recent manufacturing surveys have showed a slowdown.

HSBC China PMI

The consumer price index and producer price index have also slowed. The latter indicates excess industrial capacity ie. too many produced goods chasing too little demand.

china producer prices

In addition, there are warning signs of serious stresses in the banking system. Two episodes of spiking inter-bank rates (where banks lend to each other) over the past six months suggest a very fragile credit system. With both, the central bank had to inject money to keep credit flowing, otherwise it would have risked skyrocketing inter-bank rates, resulting in a wave of defaults across the country. There is only so long bad debts from bad investments can be rolled over and covered up though.

Also, there has been widespread corporate credit distress. Coal miner, Liansheng Resources Group, has made recent headlines, ending up in court owing almost US$5 billion. China Everbright Bank has also belatedly admitted to a US$1 billion default on a loan back in June (coinciding with the first spike in inter-bank rates). There are many other rumours of corporates in trouble. This is hardly surprising with debt/income among corporates at 5x and total corporate debt to GDP being 125%.

In sum, you have still abundant credit-driven investment, but slowing economic output, softening inflation, inter-bank system ructions and corporate debt troubles. Hardly signs of a healthy economy.

Best ways to bet against China
If you agree that China’s economy is in serious trouble, the next question is which markets, sectors or companies are most vulnerable to such an event? The fall-out from a China downturn would be enormous and widespread, but here is a list of things which appear most susceptible were this to happen (our favourite shorts in order of preference):

1) Australian banks. Mining contributed 50% of Australian GDP growth in 2012 and that’s set to slow sharply. A China downturn would send that contribution into negative figures and that’s a big deal when mining contributes about 9% to GDP. The Aussie banks are exposed to this slowdown, are among the most expensive banks in the developed world and have huge exposure to a mammoth property bubble which has ironically been driven by Chinese buyers of late.  Commonwealth Bank (ASX: CBA) is the most expensive bank in Australia and probably the most short-able.

2) China property developers. Given the risks to the bursting of the investment bubble, the good times for property developers are unlikely to last. State-owned China Resources Land (HK: 1109) appears one of the most at risk.

3) The Chinese yuan (vs USD). This will surprise many people given the yuan strength in 2013. However, the yuan is overvalued in my view and highly vulnerable to a downturn in the economy. Moreover, there’s the added issue of yen depreciation which has to provoke a reaction from other prominent exporters, such as China, at some point.

4) Fortescue Metals. This Australian iron-ore miner is near 52-week highs as the price of iron ore has recovered nicely. But iron ore and steel are highly vulnerable to a China downturn in investment. Fortescue (ASX: FMG) isn’t cheap, has high leverage and is therefore probably the best short in the iron ore space.

5) The Aussie dollar. Yes, the Aussie has pulled back a long way already. This could well be a market signal of trouble in China, by the way. But whichever metric you use, the Aussie remains overvalued and would end up much lower should a China downturn eventuate. The Australian central bank talking down the currency is an additional negative factor.

You’ll probably notice that the list doesn’t include large parts of the Chinese stock market. Keep in mind though that this market (Shanghai Composite) is already down more than 60% from their 2007 peak. This market has signaled trouble in China ever since 2008, but too few have paid attention. Put simply, much is now priced into Chinese stocks. There may be a strong case for the potential inclusion of some of China’s second tier banks though as they’re the most vulnerable in the financial sector to a downturn.

AC Speed Read

– There are many signs that China’s economy is in serious trouble.

– The signs include still booming credit growth but lower output growth, softening inflation, spiking inter-bank rates indicating stresses in the financial system, as well as large corporate defaults and bankruptcies.

– These things combined have increased the odds of a more severe China economic downturn this year.

– The best ways to bet on a China crash include shorting the following: Australian banks, China property stocks, the Chinese yuan and iron ore miners such as Fortescue Metals.

This post was originally published at Asia Confidential:
http://asiaconf.com/2014/01/05/betting-against-china-in-2014/


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/crq6px13zd0/story01.htm Asia Confidential

Fallujah Falls to Al Qaeda-Linked Fighters

The Iraqi city
of Fallujah, the site of some of the
fiercest
fighting between American forces and insurgents during
the U.S.-led War in Iraq, has fallen to Al Qaeda-linked fighters
from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), who had been
fighting Iraqi government forces.

From the
BBC
:

The Iraq government has lost control of the strategic city of
Fallujah, west of Baghdad, say officials and witnesses.

Al-Qaeda-linked militants now control the south of the city, a
security source told the BBC. An Iraqi reporter there says
tribesmen allied with al-Qaeda hold the rest of Fallujah.

Fighting there erupted after troops broke up a protest camp by
Sunni Arabs in the city of Ramadi on Monday.

They have been accusing the Shia-led government of marginalising
the Sunnis.

Today, it was reported that Iraqi forces
launched air strikes
against Al Qaeda-linked fighters in
Ramadi, which like Fallujah is in Iraq’s western Anbar
province.

Secretary of State John Kerry
has said that the U.S. will support the Iraqi government in their
fight agains the Al Qaeda-linked fighters, but will not be sending
troops.

From the
Associated Press
:

JERUSALEM (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday
that America would support Iraq in its fight against
al-Qaeda-linked militants who have overrun two cities in the
country’s west, but said the U.S. wouldn’t send troops, calling the
battle “their fight.”

Kerry made the comments as he left Jerusalem for Jordan and
Saudi Arabia to discuss his effort to broker peace between Israel
and the Palestinians. He’s had three days of lengthy meetings with
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. Kerry said some progress was made in what he
described as ” very serious, very intensive conversations,” but key
hurdles are yet to be overcome.

Iraqi forces are reportedly preparing for a
“major attack”
on Fallujah. 

Over ten years after the launch of the the War on Terror, which
has cost
trillions of dollars
and resulted in the deaths of
hundreds

of

thousands
of people, Al Qaeda-linked fighters are now in
control of a city less than 50 miles from Iraq’s capital.

Read Reason.com forum on the tenth anniversary of the War in
Iraq
here
.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/05/fallujah-falls-to-al-qaeda-linked-fighte
via IFTTT

Cathy Young on the Gender Battlefield

2013 was
something of an anniversary year for the modern women’s movement,
marking fifty years since Betty Friedan’s best-seller “The Feminine
Mystique”—which, while hardly without flaws, offered a bracingly
positive vision of embracing female achievement and strength
without demonizing men or sacrificing family. Some of this year’s
events reflect the remarkable progress women have made in those
decades. But, says Cathy Young, the state of feminism in 2013 may
have hit a new low.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/05/cathy-young-on-the-gender-battlefield-in
via IFTTT

A Zero Hedge Exclusive: “Too Different For Comfort” – The Complete Louis-Vincent Gave E-Book

Stepping back from money management for a moment or tw, Louis-Vincent Gave takes a big picture view of ongoing global developments and the implication for investments, from his perch in Hong Kong as CIO of GaveKal.  The result is a treasure drove of wisdom on robotics, money velocity, Chinese reforms and the new asset-centric monetary system. To wit: “in the past few years, we seem to have embarked on a new paradigm in which our control engineer central bankers have decided that the value of assets must no longer be driven by a price that would be reached today, but instead by whatever best price a given asset may have reached in the past. This is a revolutionary change”. 

In all likelihood, this manipulation will fail as every attempt at price manipulation since Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices in the 3rd century. The only outstanding question is one of timing“.  Amidst this momentous change, a few asset classes offer some (relatively) safer harbour – “the RMB attempt to become a trading currency is potentially of the most important financial development… The creation of the dim-sum market may turn out to be a more important event than QE; even if few care and fewer still talk about it.”

The attached e-book is gifted from Louis-Vincent and the GaveKal team to ZeroHedge readers, with best wishes for a profitable 2014!

Too Different For Comfort, by Louis-Vincent Gave (pdf)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/3AIxCAGp1WY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

A Zero Hedge Exclusive: "Too Different For Comfort" – The Complete Louis-Vincent Gave E-Book

Stepping back from money management for a moment or tw, Louis-Vincent Gave takes a big picture view of ongoing global developments and the implication for investments, from his perch in Hong Kong as CIO of GaveKal.  The result is a treasure drove of wisdom on robotics, money velocity, Chinese reforms and the new asset-centric monetary system. To wit: “in the past few years, we seem to have embarked on a new paradigm in which our control engineer central bankers have decided that the value of assets must no longer be driven by a price that would be reached today, but instead by whatever best price a given asset may have reached in the past. This is a revolutionary change”. 

In all likelihood, this manipulation will fail as every attempt at price manipulation since Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices in the 3rd century. The only outstanding question is one of timing“.  Amidst this momentous change, a few asset classes offer some (relatively) safer harbour – “the RMB attempt to become a trading currency is potentially of the most important financial development… The creation of the dim-sum market may turn out to be a more important event than QE; even if few care and fewer still talk about it.”

The attached e-book is gifted from Louis-Vincent and the GaveKal team to ZeroHedge readers, with best wishes for a profitable 2014!

Too Different For Comfort, by Louis-Vincent Gave (pdf)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/3AIxCAGp1WY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Are Large Cap Banks Ready to “Break Out?”

On Friday at ~ 17:30 ET, my pals at CNBC led by Melissa Lee ran a segment entitled “Banks to Lead the Market in 2014?”  A gaggle of experts then proceeded to explain why the top four “too big to fail” banks – C, JPM, WFC and BAC — are set to “break out” in the coming year and that they have “momentum.”  It was even suggested by these same options market sages that the XLF SPDR is the way to exploit this hot opportunity.  BTW, I am scheduled to be on CNBC Monday ~ 15:30 ET to talk about Q4 earnings for banks and non-banks alike.   

Now it may be the case that the thundering herd on the Buy Side has, in fact, decided that large cap financials are the place to be.  There are generations of people on Wall Street who have made careers investing in the large cap financials and the love affair persists.  Unfortunately, most Buy Side managers have no idea how banks make money and even less understanding about the changing role of the “irregulators” in this sector.  Let’s go through each of these names and see what the fundamentals suggest.  But let’s first make a couple of macro comments about the operating environment, banks and non-banks.

Last week, Joe Garrett of The Garrett, McAuley Report  (December 30, 2013) noted that levels of credit utilization in the banking sector are very low, almost to an alarming degree.  For those of you who watched Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s absurd press conference on Friday, you may wonder why Chairman Bernanke was laughing.  Me too.  Here’s what Garrett said:

“The FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile is always interesting reading, and here’s something I saw:  U.S. Banks have total deposits of $11.02 trillion and $7.65 trillion in loans and leases. If you do the math, that’s a 69.4% loans-to-deposit ratio.  Each bank is different, but we like loans-to-deposit ratios of 80-90% and maybe 100-110% if you’re doing lots of asset selling like mortgage banking.”

What Joe is telling us in his usual gentlemanly fashion is that banks are severely under-leveraged.  Joe, who works as an operations consultant to commercial banks large and small, has forgotten more about the banking industry than Ben Bernanke and his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee ever knew.  

The basic problem facing the industry is that the low interest rate environment created by the Fed to help banks maintain their net interest margins back in 2009 and 2010 has now become a source of deflation.  As we noted back in November, there is no free lunch.  Either we kill economic growth via financial repression of savers or we embrace the painful process of debt restructuring for the major industrial nations.  This is not a question of “austerity” as Paul Krugman and others maintain, but rather a simple case of misunderstanding the role of credit in our society.  

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-11-28/default-deflation-and-pi…

Low rates are killing the consumer and demand for credit, even as regulations such as Dodd-Frank and Basel III have made it impossible for banks to fully deploy their deposit base.  Seeing that banks parked ~ $3 trillion in excess reserves at the Fed, the FOMC then decided to buy government and mortgage securities via QE.  This too is deflationary, however, since the “spread” earned by the Fed is simply transferred to the US Treasury.  If you measure “austerity” based on the budget deficit, then the Fed is responsible for austerity.  We talked about this problem in an earlier ZH post with David Kotok from Cumberland Advisors.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-12-02/bagehot-deflation-interv…

The other issue to which Garrett alludes is the question of asset sales.  Since the subprime bust and especially since the end of the safe harbor on “true sales” by the FDIC in 2010, the off-balance sheet game played by the big banks has come to an end.  Yes, there are still structured notes and derivatives games, but the big dollars that propelled bank valuations into the stratosphere came from very large asset securitizations.  As I wrote in American Banker over the holiday:

“The poisonous combination of Dodd-Frank legislation, the mortgage foreclosure settlement by the state attorneys general and the Basel III capital rules prevents commercial banks from making anything but prime loans. Add to this the end of the safe harbor for “true sales” of asset-backed securities by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2010 and you can virtually guarantee that no FDIC-insured commercial bank will underwrite a nonprime, non-QRM loan or securitization ever again.”

So given that the Bernanke, Janet Yellen and the rest of the FOMC have decided to kill demand for credit via extreme interest rate policy as well as regulatory requirements like Dodd-Frank and Basel lll, how should investors view financials?  Short answer: With great caution.  The larger, better known groups in the banking sector have been turned into utilities.  Meanwhile, the non-banks such as my employer are showing far greater growth rates and market valuations.  But nonbanks also have far less of a following among the financial media and Sell Side research analysts.  So the basic watchword for investors pondering all financials is simply this: caution.  

Citigroup

In terms of fundamentals, C is probably the most improved of the TBTF banks over the past 12 months and the equity price shows it.  The stock is at its 52-week high and indeed the best value since 2009.  But even at $50 the equity market value of C is just 1/10th of the value prior to the 2007 subprime meltdown when the equivalent stock price was over $500.  Off-balance sheet finance drove the bank’s valuation up and up, then cause C to fail catastrophically.  

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1951350_20130930…

Looking that the bank holding company performance report for C, the first thing that jumps out is that the bank is continuing to shrink in terms of assets and funding. Indeed, going back to the point about the deflationary nature of the FOMC’s interest rate policies, most of the 93 institutions that are part of the large bank peer group defined by the Fed and FFIEC are shrinking.  When credit shrinks, so does consumer demand and employment. 

Earnings from interest and non-interest sources at C are likewise down sequentially as well as year-over-year, although net interest income is up thanks to an end of restructuring charges, settlements and aggressive cost cutting.  Net interest income at 2.5% of average assets is 30bp below peer because of C’s relatively higher funding and credit costs.  C makes up some of this deficit because the yield on its subprime loan and lease assets is almost 7% — 2.25% above the peer group average yield for loans and leases.  But provisions expense is also 2x peer because of the higher charge offs from C’s subprime loan book. Overall, the yield on C’s earning assets at 3.69% is just below the large bank peer average.  

What all of these numbers tell you is that C is pretty much in the middle of the performance pack as far as large banks are concerned.  So as an investor, you are really not being paid in a risk-adjusted sense for the higher loss rate on C’s assets.  Just remember that Capital One Financial (COF) is a better peer for C than the other three money center banks.  There is little or no organic growth on the revenue or earnings line, save cost cutting, yet the Sell Side analysts have somehow managed to publish forward earnings estimates showing double digit growth in 2014. Keep in mind that Sell Side estimates for revenue growth are flat.  

So to believe the Street earnings estimates for C of $4.67 for 2013 going to $5.32 in 2014 (+ 14%), you must believe that C is going to continue cost cutting and raising fees on all non-interest services.  With a PE of 13+ and a price/book of 0.81, there may well be some upside possible for C, but just remember that there is no real visibility on revenue growth.  

Bank of America

BAC is arguably still the laggard among the top four large cap banks, trading at a price/book of 0.79 and a 12 P/E.  At ~ $16.50 per share, BAC is at the 52-week high but that is still just 20% of the pre-crisis peak of ~ $54 or well over 2x tangible book value.  In the current economic, interest rate and regulatory environment, expecting any commercial bank to trade at such multiples to tangible book is simply not reasonable.  The secular bull market in financials that started in 1995, paused in 2000-2001, and then soared until the crisis began is not a good metric for assessing future market performance IMHO.

Looking at the BHC performance report for BAC prepared by the Fed you can see why BAC is still trading at a discount to book.  Net income as a percentage of average assets is still half (0.49%) vs. the large bank peers (0.95%), although a 1% ROA is hardly reason to get excited.  Remember, when big banks were trading at 2x tangible book six plus years ago, they were heavily involved in asset securitization and thus were reporting over 2% ROAs and equity returns in the high teens to low 20% range.  We live in a different world today.  

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1073757_20130930…  

Going back to the point made by Joe Garrett about bank leverage, BAC’s ratio of net loans and leases to total assets is just 44% vs. 60% for the large bank peers.  No surprise that BAC has started to grow its loan book, but at a rate (3.76%) that is below peer (5.43%).  In terms of margin analysis, BAC’s reported net income as a percentage of average earning assets of 2.28% vs. 3.17% for the large bank peers.  The gross yield on BAC’s loan and lease book of 4.14% is 50bp below peer.  

So the good news here is that BAC has a good bit of room to improve its operations, but the bad news is that the Fed and other regulators are going to do everything in their power to make sure that this does not happen.  Sell Side analysts are projecting a 3% revenue growth rate for BAC in 2013, but just 0.3% in 2014.  Earnings are projected to treble to $0.89 per share in 2013 and then rise to $1.32 (+ ~ 50%) per share in 2014 – this on zero revenue growth.  As with C, you have to ask yourself how much more cost BAC can cut out of operations to achieve this Sell Side EPS target.  

JP Morgan Chase

JPM is arguably fairly valued at the current $59 equity price, roughly 1.2x tangible book and about a 10 P/E.  Unlike C and BAC, JPM was growing faster than its peers at the end of Q3 2013.  Net income as a percentage of average assets at 0.71% is below the 0.95% peer average, but then again, neither figure is cause for excitement.  Net loans and leases at JPM grew 2.2% last quarter vs. 5.4% for the large bank peer group defined by the FFIEC.

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1039502_20130930…

In terms of the JPM loan & lease book, the yield at the end of Q3 2013 was 4.54% vs. 4.74% for the peer group.  JPM makes up for the pedestrian performance on its lending assets because of the yield on its trading book — 2.07% or roughly 2x the peer group average. 

Of interest, the Sell Side analysts have a -1.3% revenue estimate for 2013 and a 2.1% revenue estimate for 2014. In terms of earnings, the Sell Side has JPM doing $4.40 per share in 2013 vs. $5.20 the year before.  For 2014, however, the Sell Side community estimates that JPM will do almost $6 per share in earnings or a mere 33% EPS growth rate YOY.  Again, all of this happens on flat revenue.

Wells Fargo

WFC is arguably the best performing of the four TBTF banks, with a price to tangible book well north of 1.6x and a forward P/E of 11.  At just over $45 per share, WFC is at its 52-week and the all-time high as well. You could say that the name is fully valued at this level. 

Looking at the BHC performance report for WFC at the end of Q3 2013, the bank is clearly one of the better performers in the peer group.  Asset growth has been steady, although loan growth has suffered due to the catastrophic drop off in mortgage volumes experienced by the entire banking industry.  Again, you can thank Chairman Bernanke, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd for the mortgage lending market implosion now underway.

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1120754_20130930…

With an ROA of 1.53%, WFC’s asset returns are 50% higher than the large bank peer average.  Net interest income at 3.4% is also above peer though only in the 56th percentile of the 93 banks in the group.  The shame of it is that there are a number of large banks in the US that consistently perform better than WFC and the other money centers, but their shares are too illiquid to attract significant investor support.  

Given WFC’s dependence upon mortgage lending as part of its overall business model, the Sell Side analysts have a -2.2% estimate for revenue in 2013 and a 0.9% estimate for revenue in 2014.  Earnings, however, are projected to grow $0.50 to $3.87 in 2013 and another $0.12 to $4.00 per share in 2014.  Given the grim outlook for the mortgage lending sector, these numbers for WFC make at least some sense compared with the estimates for C, BAC and JPM.  The real question is whether WFC can maintain its premium equity market valuation in the face of weak or no revenue growth.    

Bottom line for financials is that 2014 is looking to be a tough year, even if the Sell Side wants to believe that growing earnings is still possible on flat revenue after years of cost cutting.  The thing to keep in mind is that banks have been fighting to cut costs and grow non-interest revenue (i.e fees) for the past several years.  Given that loan loss provisions are probably as low as they a going to go, finding additional revenue on the expense side of the ledger is going to be difficult indeed for all banks.  


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/qRl2T2alJHM/story01.htm rcwhalen

Are Large Cap Banks Ready to "Break Out?"

On Friday at ~ 17:30 ET, my pals at CNBC led by Melissa Lee ran a segment entitled “Banks to Lead the Market in 2014?”  A gaggle of experts then proceeded to explain why the top four “too big to fail” banks – C, JPM, WFC and BAC — are set to “break out” in the coming year and that they have “momentum.”  It was even suggested by these same options market sages that the XLF SPDR is the way to exploit this hot opportunity.  BTW, I am scheduled to be on CNBC Monday ~ 15:30 ET to talk about Q4 earnings for banks and non-banks alike.   

Now it may be the case that the thundering herd on the Buy Side has, in fact, decided that large cap financials are the place to be.  There are generations of people on Wall Street who have made careers investing in the large cap financials and the love affair persists.  Unfortunately, most Buy Side managers have no idea how banks make money and even less understanding about the changing role of the “irregulators” in this sector.  Let’s go through each of these names and see what the fundamentals suggest.  But let’s first make a couple of macro comments about the operating environment, banks and non-banks.

Last week, Joe Garrett of The Garrett, McAuley Report  (December 30, 2013) noted that levels of credit utilization in the banking sector are very low, almost to an alarming degree.  For those of you who watched Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s absurd press conference on Friday, you may wonder why Chairman Bernanke was laughing.  Me too.  Here’s what Garrett said:

“The FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile is always interesting reading, and here’s something I saw:  U.S. Banks have total deposits of $11.02 trillion and $7.65 trillion in loans and leases. If you do the math, that’s a 69.4% loans-to-deposit ratio.  Each bank is different, but we like loans-to-deposit ratios of 80-90% and maybe 100-110% if you’re doing lots of asset selling like mortgage banking.”

What Joe is telling us in his usual gentlemanly fashion is that banks are severely under-leveraged.  Joe, who works as an operations consultant to commercial banks large and small, has forgotten more about the banking industry than Ben Bernanke and his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee ever knew.  

The basic problem facing the industry is that the low interest rate environment created by the Fed to help banks maintain their net interest margins back in 2009 and 2010 has now become a source of deflation.  As we noted back in November, there is no free lunch.  Either we kill economic growth via financial repression of savers or we embrace the painful process of debt restructuring for the major industrial nations.  This is not a question of “austerity” as Paul Krugman and others maintain, but rather a simple case of misunderstanding the role of credit in our society.  

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-11-28/default-deflation-and-pi…

Low rates are killing the consumer and demand for credit, even as regulations such as Dodd-Frank and Basel III have made it impossible for banks to fully deploy their deposit base.  Seeing that banks parked ~ $3 trillion in excess reserves at the Fed, the FOMC then decided to buy government and mortgage securities via QE.  This too is deflationary, however, since the “spread” earned by the Fed is simply transferred to the US Treasury.  If you measure “austerity” based on the budget deficit, then the Fed is responsible for austerity.  We talked about this problem in an earlier ZH post with David Kotok from Cumberland Advisors.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-12-02/bagehot-deflation-interv…

The other issue to which Garrett alludes is the question of asset sales.  Since the subprime bust and especially since the end of the safe harbor on “true sales” by the FDIC in 2010, the off-balance sheet game played by the big banks has come to an end.  Yes, there are still structured notes and derivatives games, but the big dollars that propelled bank valuations into the stratosphere came from very large asset securitizations.  As I wrote in American Banker over the holiday:

“The poisonous combination of Dodd-Frank legislation, the mortgage foreclosure settlement by the state attorneys general and the Basel III capital rules prevents commercial banks from making anything but prime loans. Add to this the end of the safe harbor for “true sales” of asset-backed securities by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2010 and you can virtually guarantee that no FDIC-insured commercial bank will underwrite a nonprime, non-QRM loan or securitization ever again.”

So given that the Bernanke, Janet Yellen and the rest of the FOMC have decided to kill demand for credit via extreme interest rate policy as well as regulatory requirements like Dodd-Frank and Basel lll, how should investors view financials?  Short answer: With great caution.  The larger, better known groups in the banking sector have been turned into utilities.  Meanwhile, the non-banks such as my employer are showing far greater growth rates and market valuations.  But nonbanks also have far less of a following among the financial media and Sell Side research analysts.  So the basic watchword for investors pondering all financials is simply this: caution.  

Citigroup

In terms of fundamentals, C is probably the most improved of the TBTF banks over the past 12 months and the equity price shows it.  The stock is at its 52-week high and indeed the best value since 2009.  But even at $50 the equity market value of C is just 1/10th of the value prior to the 2007 subprime meltdown when the equivalent stock price was over $500.  Off-balance sheet finance drove the bank’s valuation up and up, then cause C to fail catastrophically.  

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1951350_20130930…

Looking that the bank holding company performance report for C, the first thing that jumps out is that the bank is continuing to shrink in terms of assets and funding. Indeed, going back to the point about the deflationary nature of the FOMC’s interest rate policies, most of the 93 institutions that are part of the large bank peer group defined by the Fed and FFIEC are shrinking.  When credit shrinks, so does consumer demand and employment. 

Earnings from interest and non-interest sources at C are likewise down sequentially as well as year-over-year, although net interest income is up thanks to an end of restructuring charges, settlements and aggressive cost cutting.  Net interest income at 2.5% of average assets is 30bp below peer because of C’s relatively higher funding and credit costs.  C makes up some of this deficit because the yield on its subprime loan and lease assets is almost 7% — 2.25% above the peer group average yield for loans and leases.  But provisions expense is also 2x peer because of the higher charge offs from C’s subprime loan book. Overall, the yield on C’s earning assets at 3.69% is just below the large bank peer average.  

What all of these numbers tell you is that C is pretty much in the middle of the performance pack as far as large banks are concerned.  So as an investor, you are really not being paid in a risk-adjusted sense for the higher loss rate on C’s assets.  Just remember that Capital One Financial (COF) is a better peer for C than the other three money center banks.  There is little or no organic growth on the revenue or earnings line, save cost cutting, yet the Sell Side analysts have somehow managed to publish forward earnings estimates showing double digit growth in 2014. Keep in mind that Sell Side estimates for revenue growth are flat.  

So to believe the Street earnings estimates for C of $4.67 for 2013 going to $5.32 in 2014 (+ 14%), you must believe that C is going to continue cost cutting and raising fees on all non-interest services.  With a PE of 13+ and a price/book of 0.81, there may well be some upside possible for C, but just remember that there is no real visibility on revenue growth.  

Bank of America

BAC is arguably still the laggard among the top four large cap banks, trading at a price/book of 0.79 and a 12 P/E.  At ~ $16.50 per share, BAC is at the 52-week high but that is still just 20% of the pre-crisis peak of ~ $54 or well over 2x tangible book value.  In the current economic, interest rate and regulatory environment, expecting any commercial bank to trade at such multiples to tangible book is simply not reasonable.  The secular bull market in financials that started in 1995, paused in 2000-2001, and then soared until the crisis began is not a good metric for assessing future market performance IMHO.

Looking at the BHC performance report for BAC prepared by the Fed you can see why BAC is still trading at a discount to book.  Net income as a percentage of average assets is still half (0.49%) vs. the large bank peers (0.95%), although a 1% ROA is hardly reason to get excited.  Remember, when big banks were trading at 2x tangible book six plus years ago, they were heavily involved in asset securitization and thus were reporting over 2% ROAs and equity returns in the high teens to low 20% range.  We live in a different world today.  

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1073757_20130930…  

Going back to the point made by Joe Garrett about bank leverage, BAC’s ratio of net loans and leases to total assets is just 44% vs. 60% for the large bank peers.  No surprise that BAC has started to grow its loan book, but at a rate (3.76%) that is below peer (5.43%).  In terms of margin analysis, BAC’s reported net income as a percentage of average earning assets of 2.28% vs. 3.17% for the large bank peers.  The gross yield on BAC’s loan and lease book of 4.14% is 50bp below peer.  

So the good news here is that BAC has a good bit of room to improve its operations, but the bad news is that the Fed and other regulators are going to do everything in their power to make sure that this does not happen.  Sell Side analysts are projecting a 3% revenue growth rate for BAC in 2013, but just 0.3% in 2014.  Earnings are projected to treble to $0.89 per share in 2013 and then rise to $1.32 (+ ~ 50%) per share in 2014 – this on zero revenue growth.  As with C, you have to ask yourself how much more cost BAC can cut out of operations to achieve this Sell Side EPS target.  

JP Morgan Chase

JPM is arguably fairly valued at the current $59 equity price, roughly 1.2x tangible book and about a 10 P/E.  Unlike C and BAC, JPM was growing faster than its peers at the end of Q3 2013.  Net income as a percentage of average assets at 0.71% is below the 0.95% peer average, but then again, neither figure is cause for excitement.  Net loans and leases at JPM grew 2.2% last quarter vs. 5.4% for the large bank peer group defined by the FFIEC.

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1039502_20130930…

In terms of the JPM loan & lease book, the yield at the end of Q3 2013 was 4.54% vs. 4.74% for the peer group.  JPM makes up for the pedestrian performance on its lending assets because of the yield on its trading book — 2.07% or roughly 2x the peer group average. 

Of interest, the Sell Side analysts have a -1.3% revenue estimate for 2013 and a 2.1% revenue estimate for 2014. In terms of earnings, the Sell Side has JPM doing $4.40 per share in 2013 vs. $5.20 the year before.  For 2014, however, the Sell Side community estimates that JPM will do almost $6 per share in earnings or a mere 33% EPS growth rate YOY.  Again, all of this happens on flat revenue.

Wells Fargo

WFC is arguably the best performing of the four TBTF banks, with a price to tangible book well north of 1.6x and a forward P/E of 11.  At just over $45 per share, WFC is at its 52-week and the all-time high as well. You could say that the name is fully valued at this level. 

Looking at the BHC performance report for WFC at the end of Q3 2013, the bank is clearly one of the better performers in the peer group.  Asset growth has been steady, although loan growth has suffered due to the catastrophic drop off in mortgage volumes experienced by the entire banking industry.  Again, you can thank Chairman Bernanke, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd for the mortgage lending market implosion now underway.

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/NICDataCache/BHCPR/BHCPR_1120754_20130930…

With an ROA of 1.53%, WFC’s asset returns are 50% higher than the large bank peer average.  Net interest income at 3.4% is also above peer though only in the 56th percentile of the 93 banks in the
group.  The shame of it is that there are a number of large banks in the US that consistently perform better than WFC and the other money centers, but their shares are too illiquid to attract significant investor support.  

Given WFC’s dependence upon mortgage lending as part of its overall business model, the Sell Side analysts have a -2.2% estimate for revenue in 2013 and a 0.9% estimate for revenue in 2014.  Earnings, however, are projected to grow $0.50 to $3.87 in 2013 and another $0.12 to $4.00 per share in 2014.  Given the grim outlook for the mortgage lending sector, these numbers for WFC make at least some sense compared with the estimates for C, BAC and JPM.  The real question is whether WFC can maintain its premium equity market valuation in the face of weak or no revenue growth.    

Bottom line for financials is that 2014 is looking to be a tough year, even if the Sell Side wants to believe that growing earnings is still possible on flat revenue after years of cost cutting.  The thing to keep in mind is that banks have been fighting to cut costs and grow non-interest revenue (i.e fees) for the past several years.  Given that loan loss provisions are probably as low as they a going to go, finding additional revenue on the expense side of the ledger is going to be difficult indeed for all banks.  


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/qRl2T2alJHM/story01.htm rcwhalen

Are You Ready for Some Taxpayer-Subsidized Nonprofit Sportsball?

With the NFL playoffs
underway and the BCS National Championship Game kicking off
tomorrow night, now seems like a perfect time to remind every
American just how screwed up the economics behind these games
actually are. 

Here is the original text from the Dec. 2, 2013 video:

Whether you like football or not – whether you’ve ever
bought a ticket to a high school, college, or NFL game – you’re
paying for it.

That’s one of the takeaways from The King of Sports:
Football’s Impact on America, Gregg Easterbrook’s fascinating new
book on the cultural, economic, and political impact of America’s
most popular and lucrative sport.

“The [state-supported] University of Maryland charges
each…undergraduate $400 a year to subsidize the football
program,” says Easterbrook, who notes that only a half-dozen or so
college teams are truly self-supporting. Even powerhouse programs
such as the University of Florida’s pull money from students and
taxpayers. “They do it,” he says, “because they can get away with
it.”

At the pro level, billionaire team owners such as Paul
Allen of the Seattle Seahawks and Shahid Khan of the Jacksonville
Jaguars benefit from publicly financed stadiums for which they pay
little or nothing while reaping all revenue. Easterbrook also talks
about how the lobbyists managed to get the NFL chartered as a
nonprofit by amending tax codes designed for chambers of commerce
and trade organizations.

As ESPN.com’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback columnist,
Easterbrook absolutely loves football but also isn’t slow to throw
penalty flags at the game he thinks is uniquely America. In fact,
he sees the hypocrisy at the center of the business of football as
“one of the ways that football synchs [with] American
culture….Everyone in football talks rock-ribbed conservatism,
self-reliance. Then their economic structure is subsidies and
guaranteed benefits. Isn’t that America?”

Easterbrook sat down with Reason’s Nick Gillespie to
discuss The King of Sports, how the business of football burns
taxpayers, and whether increased worries about brain injuries and
other problems spell eventual doom for the NFL and other levels of
play.
Produced by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and
Krainin.

Runs about 8:45 minutes.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/05/are-you-ready-for-some-taxpayer-subsidiz
via IFTTT

JFK Shuts Down After Plane Skids Off “Ice Skating Rink” Runway: Entire Nation Blanketed In Subzero Deep Freeze

It’s cold out there. Cold enough that JFK’s runways are so frozen, airplanes literally are skidding off runways, which is what happened seconds ago to a Delta airplane landing at JFK.The result: JFK is now closed until further notice.

It’s not just the airports:

But that’s just New York: elsewhere America is gripped in a cold spell which may beat all records, as 140 million Americans are expected to see subzero temperatures in the coming days, including the deep south.

As CNN reports, “The deep freeze gripping much of the country is about to send temperatures plummeting to unbelievable lows. Parts of the Midwest and Great Plains will plunge as low as 30 degrees below zero on Sunday. That’s where the Green Bay Packers will host the San Francisco 49ers in what could be the coldest football game in NFL history. By Wednesday, nearly half the nation — 140 million people — will shudder in temperatures of zero or lower, forecasters said. Even the Deep South will endure single-digit or sub-zero temperatures.”

What to expect around the country:

As if the 30-below-zero temperatures weren’t frigid enough, the wind chill in much of Midwest and Great Plains could drop to minus 50, the National Weather Service said. And that’s on top of the moderate to heavy snow possible over the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley on Sunday.

 

“Brutal conditions will continue pushing southeastward to the Ohio Valley and Mid-South by Monday, and to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic by Tuesday,” the weather agency said. “Afternoon highs on Monday for parts of the Midwest states and the Ohio Valley will fail to reach zero degrees.”

But nobody will have it worse than some 70,000 Green Bay Packers fans who may see frigid conditions as bad as -40 with the wind chill:

More than 70,000 hardcore Packers fans hoping to see their team get
closer to the Super Bowl will have their loyalty tested Sunday as they
endure temperatures as low as 15-below-zero in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
With the wind, the air could feel as cold as minus-30 to minus-40
degrees to the sold-out crowd.

 

The Packers will give free hand warmers, hot chocolate and coffee to the fans braving the cold on Sunday, spokesman Aaron Popkey said.

 

In Embarrass, Minnesota, residents wondered whether they might see their record-cold temperature of 64 below zero, set in 1996, snap like an icicle.

 

“I’ve got a thermometer from the weather service that goes to 100 below,” resident Roland Fowlei told CNN affiliate KQDS. “If it gets that cold, I don’t want to be here.”

Even the Deep South won’t be spared:

The arctic blast threatens to sweep subzero lows as far south as Alabama and plunge much of the Deep South into the single digits.

 

To put things in perspective, the weather in Atlanta on Monday will be colder than in Anchorage, Alaska, CNN meteorologist Pedram Javaheri said.

 

Freezing rain is also possible along the Appalachians all the way up to New England over the next couple of days, the National Weather Service said.

 

The low temperatures and wind chill are a dangerous recipe for rapid frostbite or hypothermia.

 

“Exposed flesh can freeze in as little as five minutes with wind chills colder than 50 below,” the National Weather Service’s Twin Cities office in Minnesota said. Forecasters there warned of “the coldest air in two decades.

 

Over the past week, at least 13 people have died from weather-related conditions.

 

Eleven people died in road accidents — including one man crushed as he was moving street salt with a forklift.

 

One man in Wisconsin died of hypothermia. And an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s disease in New York state wandered away from her home and was found dead in the snow in a wooded area about 100 yards away.

Finally, those who can avoid to travel should do so:

The already dreadful stream of stranded passengers and canceled flights will only get worse.

 

FlightAware.com, which tracks cancellations due to both weather and mechanical problems, said more than 1,500 flights have been canceled for Sunday. That’s after 4,500 flights were called off on Friday and Saturday.

 

In Chicago, a plane headed to Las Vegas slid off the taxiway at O’Hare International Airport on Saturday night. None of the passengers on Spirit Flight 245 were injured, an airlines spokeswoman said.

 

But with the Windy City inundated by snow, O’Hare will have more troubles Sunday. About 1,000 inbound or outbound flights have already been canceled, according to FlightAware.com.

And some photos from the frozen country:

Basketball fans brave the cold and snow as they cross to the United Center in Chicago on Saturday, January 4.

 

People go sledding in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, on Saturday, January 4.
 

 

Snow is piled high in front of a Home Depot in Boston on January 4 after a two-day winter storm.
  

 

Michael Stanton walks between houses covered with ice in the shore town of Scituate, Massachusetts, on Friday, January 3. 

 

Frost covers the windows at the Morning Glory natural food store where a customer wearing a mask braves 0-degree Fahrenheit temperatures to shop in Brunswick, Maine, on January 3. 

 

Surfers make their way through snow on New York’s Rockaway Beach on January 3. 

 

A man walks down a snowy road along the shore in Scituate, Massachusetts, on January 3. 

 

People play in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, on January 3.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ao4Jq1fFlY4/story01.htm Tyler Durden