Watching the Banks

Banks Dodged a bullet?

"Hmmm.....
June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital buffers. What it won’t do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street’s biggest banks or prevent another crisis, analysts said.
Probably.
jackass.png

The ink is not yet dry and there's no vote yet on exactly what this bill actually is and does. I'll be doing my usual analysis once I have an actual stable copy.


But what I can tell from watching CSPAN until the wee hours, and following the process as closely as I reasonably can without crawling up Barney Frank's skirt, this is what we got:
  • Banks will have to spin off SOME (but not the important parts) of their derivative operations. The parts they care about (and on which they make the most money) are not credit-default swaps, they're interest-rate and FX swaps. Those are pretty much left alone, and that stinks. Bet on them trying to find every possible way to keep those "custom" as much as they can and thus off exchanges, even though that's almost entirely bogus and intended only to rape the consumer of those products by hiding price discovery.

  • Investing in hedge funds is a red herring. Controlling them is another matter, and might in fact be worthwhile reform. We'll see. Color me skeptical on this one until I can read the ACTUAL text as passed.

  • It appears that language that would prevent banks from taking positions opposite to their clients (as opposed to hedging market-making risk) has survived. This would prevent the Goldman-esque game played with various CDO structures. Again, I wait until I can read actual language before I call this good.

  • Increasing capital is good. Not forcing that capital to cover all unsecured lending is bad. The attempt to split the baby and keep the "credit leverage" game is clear in the legislation, but so far nothing they've tried has made that actually work, nor do I think it can. Thus, the major factors in the instability we experienced remain intact and that's bad.

  • Fannie and Freddie are left out of it. That's horrible. I know the banks went bananas on the possibility they'd be constrained, but they need to be constrained and the banks need to be forced to pay for their part of interacting with Fan/Fred and causing this mess. Not in this bill it won't, and that sucks.
Much of the bill also won't do anything immediately, as it "enables" rather than directs in and of itself. That's very bad, as the regulatory capture process remains intact. What actual regulations will come out of this remain an open question.
On balance: Better than no bill, and Judd Gregg claiming that the bill is a "disaster" and will "dramatically contract credit" is just pure garbage. What it will do is stop a small amount of unsupportable and unsustainable lending, but nowhere near enough of it. It will not stop excessive risk-taking and risk-layering. The capital requirements aren't stringent enough, the "Volcker Rule" was watered down to the point of being of little effect and the derivatives regulation was eviscerated.
Oh, and nowhere that I can find - thus far - is there an "or else" for either a bank or a regulation for violations of the law.
On balance, thus far, I call it this:
nothingburger.gif

All bun to (try to) soothe the masses and electoral anger, no beef."

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2454-Banks-Dodged-A-Bullet.html
 
Bank stocks zoomed higher today.

The banks won.

There still will be "TOO BIG TO FAIL".

They won't be broken up.

Sucks.

All we got is some window dressing. That's it.
 
The ONLY thing you have to know is this-

Yesterday, Citibank closed at $3.77 a share.

Today, it closed at $3.94 a share.

You tell me- you think anything at all is going to be done to control the banks????
 
Whoa, major head fake! XLF:SPY ratio is now at .132.

XLF made a H&S reversal on the weekly chart and looks like KRE is sitting on support. When these things go, be prepared for the resumption of bank closing Friday. Looks like we are at 174 now for the past year ending on last Friday.
 
Banking/Financials dropped big today ($BKX 2.36%)
Related??
"Crack Smoking Part Deux" [re: The Fed, Treasury, etc.]

..."We'll start with the fact that these charlatans get the cycle backwards - Treasury sells the debt first, not the other way around, and to do so it must find someone who has surplus in dollars - the currency in which the Treasuries are funded.
Let's next run this little claim to exhaustion in an attempt to see if this is a clear-cut Ponzi Scheme - ask yourself why Treasury doesn't just print up and sell the entire $14 trillion in GDP every year.
That would instantly absorb all excess capacity and result in an immediate and monstrous economic boom, right?
Well, no, it would not.
Were Treasury to attempt to do this it would discover what the words "failed auction" mean in short order, as there simply isn't enough existing surplus (electronically or otherwise) to absorb that supply."

"...See, we haven't printed anything. "QE" where the reserves created are immediately deposited with The Fed is a circle-jerk. There is no money-printing going on until and unless the reserves created enter the economy in some form. So long as they remain on deposit with The Fed it is simply a pass of a $20 bill from them to you and back to them - the net monetary impact is zilch.
To add insult to injury, Bernanke got the exact opposite reaction he was looking for! By "buying" Fannie and Freddie (along with Treasury) paper he didn't support price and suppress coupon - to the contrary, as this chart shows, as soon as he started "QE" the 10 year Treasury yield went higher, not lower, and it was the end of "QE" that marked the top the 10 year Treasury rate!
Again: Why?

That's simple: Credit creation against nothing (that is, not backed by actual hard collateral - that is, surplus already produced in some form), is simply a naked short against the monetary system. That is, the writer of such a position is agreeing to deliver money he does not yet have and may not be able to acquire, with nothing other than his word behind that promise.
It doesn't matter if that short is created by a government or a private actor, with one important distinction: in a fiat currency system government can decide to emit unbacked currency to satisfy a naked short, where private parties cannot."

"...Remember, a naked short is self-limiting because the shorted item doesn't actually exist. That is, it is counterfeiting in the purest sense; you're selling something you don't have and may not be able to acquire. The important fact to remember, however, is that a naked short will eventually unwind, and when it does, the depression of price that occurred when it was created will be reversed.

Printed additional "shares" (or currency), on the other hand - that is, raw, unbacked emission - does the opposite - it creates permanent debasement.
Likewise, the argument that "QE" reduced or capped rates is exactly backward. It did no such thing - it in fact caused rates to rise - that is, it supported bank THEFT via interest from ordinary Americans - exactly the opposite of the claimed intended effect!" :sick:
[more...]
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
 
Last edited:
Monday, August 9th. - Stock Trends, Charts, and Commentary

"Financials now make up 16.26% of the S&P 500 index.

So, it would be very helpful for the S&P 500 if banks were healthier, making good profits, and trending higher.

So, what is happening to the Banking Index? Is it moving higher, stalling, or falling? Today's chart shows the action of the Banking Index ($BKX) going back to August of 2009.

What's clear, is that the index has been in a sideways trading range since May of this year.

Starting in July, that range morphed into a triangular pattern whose apex will occur before the end of next week.

What does that mean?

It means that the Banking Index will breakout of the pattern soon, and the ensuing move should be between 10% to 13% from the breakout level.

So ... this will either be very good, or very bad for the S&P 500."​

http://www.stocktiming.com/Monday-DailyMarketUpdate.htm

View attachment 9823
 
Just FYI, why "Watch-The-Banks"? Most here know they are the bad-guys. The crooks. The PPT has been pumping trillions to "save" them - and they got us into this mess.
The latest, bill-on-the-Hill - is to "save" the underwater homeowners [only]. In reality, its just more of our dollars/debt that will end up going to the Banks. :sick:
There are other reasons to watch 'em! - Its our money/our debt after all!
(Just thought I'd add perspective on why I think this thread could be used for so much more.) VR!
 
You got that right Hessian. If these guys are down, the market will be down. Oh, how I remember 2 years ago (ancient history in the stock market) how the gurus proclaimed, "Watch the banks! We can't rally out of this credit mess without them."

Second test of support failed on KRE and momo is to the downside especially after the failed downtrend breakout. Major divergence taking place right now.

View attachment 9837
 
I think you'll begin to see more bank buyouts in the immediate future - I should hopefully own a few that will go out with a nice premium.
 
Banking Index $BKX was down large today: -3.17%, an amount that gave back the last 2 days (Thurs & Friday), and then some.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$BKX&p=D&yr=0&mn=4&dy=0&id=p55192775979

I think you'll begin to see more bank buyouts in the immediate future - I should hopefully own a few that will go out with a nice premium.
Birch, I agree, re: more bank buyouts likely - and also like to find info on whether bank defaults are increasing (whether any such trend is started).
VR
 
Re: Stand back, when this sh*t hits the fan it's going to go far and wide

This is a comprehensive read, and well worth the whole article.

http://www.truth-out.org/shock-therapy-wall-street-jpmorgan-suspends-56000-foreclosures-gmac-and-boa-many-more63803
Shock Therapy for Wall Street:
JPMorgan Suspends 56,000 Foreclosures; GMAC and BOA Many More
Saturday 02 October 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnHLDeedVg
On September 30, Rep. Alan Grayson posted a devastating seven-minute video, in which he gave four real-world examples of such travesties of justice, including a man who was foreclosed on when he didn’t have a mortgage and paid cash for the home; a home that had two foreclosure suits against it because both servicers claimed ownership of the title; and a couple foreclosed on over a contested $75 late fee.
Grayson blamed the massive foreclosure problems largely on the electronic shortcut called MERS. “The banks simply digitized mortgage titles into a privatized system, called the Mortgage Electronic Registry System (or MERS),” he said. “And it did the transfers by trading Excel spreadsheets among the banks and trusts, rather than endorsing the notes as required by their own contracts, by state real estate law and by IRS rules.” He stated that 60 million properties are recorded in the name of MERS -- 60% of the mortgages in the USA, and 97% of the loans made between 2005 and 2008.
For all those mortgages filed in the name of MERS, say these courts, the chain of title has been irretrievably broken. Humpty Dumpty has had a great fall and cannot be put back together again.

MERS is simply an electronic data base. On its website and in assorted court pleadings, it declares that it owns nothing. It was set up that way intentionally so that it would be “bankruptcy-remote,” something required by the credit rating agencies in order to turn the mortgages passing through it into highly rated securities that could be sold to investors. MERS not only has no assets; it has no employees. The thousands of people enlisted to sign affidavits on its behalf are merely conduits. The arrangement satisfied the ratings agencies, but it has not satisfied the courts. Increasingly, judges are holding that if MERS owns nothing, it cannot foreclose, and it cannot convey title by assignment so that the trustee for the investors can foreclose. MERS breaks the chain of title so that no one has standing to foreclose. The homes are effectively owned free and clear.

That does not mean the homeowners don’t owe money to someone. They do. But the claim for relief is not in “law” (by virtue of an enforceable contract or rule) but in “equity” (a remedy provided just because it is fair), and MERS is not the proper plaintiff. Every MERS case involves a securitization, which means the real parties in interest are a group of investors somewhere; and before the homeowners can be made to pay, the investors have to come forward and prove not only that they are the parties owed the money, but the actual sums they are owed. In some cases they might already have been paid; for example, by insurers on credit default swaps held by the investment pool. The investors are entitled to recover in equity only so much as they are actually out of pocket, not the full amount of the original promissory notes, since they were not parties to those notes and there is no way to re-establish the chain of title.

What About the Non-judicial Foreclosure States?

Foreclosures have been suspended by JPMorgan, GMAC and BOA in 23 states, but what about the rest? The others are non-judicial foreclosure states, which means they allow foreclosure through a power of sale clause in a deed of trust without going to court. The presumption is that if the lender doesn’t have to prove his standing to sue before a judge, he can proceed. State laws in non-judicial states allow the sale of a property to satisfy a foreclosure as long as the trustee follows the regulations concerning notice. That would seem to violate Constitutional due process, but the United States Constitution has held that due process protections apply only when the government is involved in the taking of property. When a deed of trust and promissory note are executed between two private parties (homeowners and lenders), there is no automatic due process protection. The homeowners agreed to it in writing; case closed.

But here’s the catch: what if the lender signing the original documents is not the party foreclosing on the property? Then it becomes a question of fact whether the foreclosing party has authority to proceed, and that makes it a judicial issue – a question of fact for the courts. If the foreclosing party can show a clear chain of title – an assignment or progression of assignments from the original lender to himself – he is home free. But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court to prove their case. And when they do, they will run up against the brick wall of MERS. He concludes:

"There will be a head-slapping moment when title carriers, attorneys, judges and administrative agencies and clerks suddenly realize that the monster created on Wall Street has its equivalent in the public records of counties across the nation. I doubt if more than 6-7% of all the foreclosures in the past 10 years have resulted in clear title delivered to anyone. And the only corrective instrument can come from the original owner. That homeowner is sitting in the catbird seat and doesn’t know it. Millions of people who THINK they have lost their homes still own them and if anyone wants a signature from those people to clear title, they are going to be required to pay dearly, which is at it should be. Eventually the purse gets returned to the victim from whom it was snatched."


From the NY Times:
Foreclosures Slow as Document Flaws Emerge

The foreclosure machinery that has forced millions of Americans out of their homes is beginning to seize up as some lenders and their lawyers are accused of cutting corners in their pursuit of rapid home repossessions.

Wall Street was examining the impact the disclosures could have on the lenders. Moody’s Investors Service has placed the servicer ratings of GMAC and Chase on review for possible downgrade.
 
Man, I'm glad mine is paid for and I have the paperwork!:)
CROOKS are everywhere, and the regulators knew NOTHING about it, surely? :nuts:
 
you don't suppose...
the financial services industry ran the market up to try and cover for this upcoming mortgage mess....
nah.... conspiracy theory!
It's a Bull market- and election cycle- buy, buy, buy!

Sept 20 and counting...

Goldman sued by SEC
April 16 to May 6 = 21 days
New York Times article
"Europe's Web of Debt" May 1
 
Back
Top