STRESSLESS

Well the report is in, the 19 banks given a “stress” test by the Feds are all able to survive and continue as key financial institutions. Ten need to build up their asset bases and nine have adequate funds. The result was seen even before the report was released, financial shares on the stock exchanges rose like rockets at lift-off.

One thing not revealed in the public information about the tests was the role played by lifting the “mark-to’market” rules. While nothing was specifically said about this, clearly the banks would not have been able to perform so well if they had not been able to revise valuations of assets to “long-term” or “maturity” values, instead of marking them to notional markets.

Proof of how fast the banks have recovered enough to lend again, I am in Spain where its largest bank just issued a new Euro 1.5 billion securitized debt bond based on mortgages. Say what, aren’t these the “toxic assets” that caused the recession? Well yes, they are, but, as I have said all along, we now know that traditional sources of credit are not sufficient for our “New Economy.” We need securitized debt to regain where we were in 2007 and go beyond, even in Spain.

A major hurdle has been crossed. Now to the Obama stimulus plan.

Leo Cecchini
May 2009

ON THE MONEY

Well no sooner did I write the last blog titled "Time to Invest" the mavens came out of the woodwork to confirm my notes. One guru on CNBC even pointed to my own portfolio as the best way to go, i.e. Bank of America, Citibank, Freddie Mac and such.

But none was as impressive as the coments from Jimmy Buffet's dad Warren at his annual meeting of his investment firm. He too spoke about investing in financial stocks. His most memorable line, however, was that, "if it takes a computer or calculator to determine how good a stock is, then I don't buy it."

For all of this last year I have been constantly hammering at the "wunderkind" with their electronic Ouija boards givine erroneous values to securitized debt and other derivatives, structured products and so on. People kept saying how could they be wrong, they are highly educated financial professionals. Well Buffet has called them out and they are now exposed as glib charlatans hiding behind the "smoke and mirors" of their trade.

By the way the stock market is rocking and rolling.

Leo Cecchini
May 2009

Time to Invest?

There are signs that the economic recovery plans are kicking in. Credit is once more available for housing and other purchases. The Obama stimulus plan is coming on stream. Banks seem to be back on the hale and hearty list. For many now seems to be the time to strike and get in early on rebounding investments. So what do I advise?

PROPERTY. I have been flogging "short sale" and foreclosure low priced rental units. "Short sale" is a term invented to describe properties sold for less than the value of their mortgage balance with the bank taking the loss. I can sell you one of these for as little as $40,000 for a unit that has a gross monthly income of $800. That means $9600 for the year less taxes and insurance of maybe $3500 or a net of $6100 or 15%.

SECURITIZED DEBT. The bad boys of the recession are back and selling very well. The easiest way to get in on the action here is to buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You should also look for products from the TAFL program of the Federal Reserve Bank.

SILVER. Funny, lots of people like to hold gold in their investment portfolio. And commodities should do well over the balance of the year. I prefer silver. While gold doubled in value over the last five years, silver trebled in value.

STOCKS. Put your money in financial shares - banks, lenders, investment groups. They took the biggest hit during the recession and promise the biggest gains in the come back.

ANYTHING GREEN. The corporate world has glommed onto the environmental movement and sees "green" to be made in being "green." Check energy technologies, no matter how far fetched, since all will get development funds. Recycling companies loom large. Another good choice is transportation that provides more efficient use of fuel, e.g. railways.

BIOTECHNOLOGY. With stem cell research now open for Federal funding and waiting cloning in the wings any group engaged in this research should see a renewal of interest.

EDUCATION. Private education led by online universities is booming. Start your own school or put your money into one.

Maybe a bit early for the faint of heart but definitely the time for the steely nerved investor.

Leo Cecchini
May 2009

PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS PUBLIC TAKOVER

Over the last week while visiting friends and family in California I have come to more clearly see the exquisite humor in what has happened over these last several months due to our faltering economy.

I have repeatedly commented on how the Federal Government has taken on an even larger role in the economy. Already the largest consumer, it will be even more so with the new budget that will increase Uncle Sam's take from 20% to over 25% of output. Already the central banker, the Federal Reserve System, Uncle Sam now owns a substantial share of the private banking sector. Already the rules maker for the economy, Uncle Sam will now engage in a round of enacting even wider controls over the financial sector. And of course the new role for Uncle Sam, the single largest stock holder in corporate America.

I have reduced this event to a terse comment, "What it took the Bolsheviks a sea of blood to do in Russia, Uncle Sam has done for peanuts." What I mean is that the Bolsheviks seized the means of production by force, while Uncle Sam is doing it for a rather small price.

I say small price because Uncle Sam is doing all this with money borrowed at small cost, in the main for less than 1% interest. And his capacity to borrow is not yet exhausted. I calculate that he can double the national debt without causing serious harm.

So what do we have. Uncle Sam is borrowing funds from the private sector at ridiculously low cost and he is using the funds to buy up the private sector. In other words the private sector is funding the Federal Government to buy it out. As I said, I find this to be exquisite humor.

Leo Cecchini
April 2009

WE ARE ALL NOW GREEN

President Obama has stated that economic recovery and future progress must be addressed at the same time as our energy supply and environmental concern, especially global warming. In fact he has linked the three as integral parts of the same problem.

I have no problem with global warming, the earth has been on a warming trend for the last 10,000 years. Now I say this as someone who lives at 18 inches above sea level on an island and has a second home so close to the sea that it is caked in salt residue after strong storms. I know hurricanes, having lost parts of both homes to hurricanes. The island I live on was actually the product of a hurricane in the early 20Th Century. I live my talk and I repeat I am not afraid of global warming, in fact I welcome it since the earth is basically a cold place.

I find that my friends are about evenly split between those who state unequivocally that global warming is a problem and we better do something about it immediately and those who deny that global warming is even occurring. Both sides have plenty of ammunition and supporters. Neither one has won the battle for public opinion. The average Joe is worried by cries that the sky is falling but is equally concerned that stemming global warming will cost him an arm and a leg.

As far as I am concerned the debate is over. The corporate world has now embraced global warming and is using it as the best marketing tool since the American dream of owning a home and a car. We are now constantly barraged by ads urging us to be "green." WalMart proudly announced that it intends selling millions of new light bulbs that use much less energy. Auto makers are flogging ad nauseum their "hybrid, electric, and new fuel" cars. We are urged to eat food grown without chemicals. In fact we are urged to eat less, period.

I wonder how the avid environmentalists view their cause being usurped by the very corporations that they held up as the villains causing all the ecological disasters. How will they deal with a march to global purity led by such bad guys as Exxon, DuPont, Dow, and so on? Talk about unintended results.



Leo Cecchini

April 2009

DIAMONDS AND MORTGAGES

A reader raised an interesting point, while he finds my articles to give "lucid" explanations of the current economic drama he believes that most readers do not understand financial markets. In looking at how to better explain the way the financial markets work I struck on an idea, why not use the market for diamonds as a way to describe the mechanism?

Diamonds are valued by the familiar "4 Cs" - carat, clarity, cut and color. Let us consider carat or weight and clarity to determine the "intrinsic" value of a diamond while we can consider cut and color to determine the "subjective" value of a diamond.

The carat or weight of a diamond can be accurately determined by a scale. Turning to a mortgage we can call its carat or weight to be its balance due, times its interest rate, times the period for repayment of the loan. This can be readily and accurately calculated.

The clarity of a diamond means how clear it is of imperfections or flaws which can be readily seen with a microscope. Such flaws and imperfections determine the potential for the stone to break and can be accurately measured. Turning to mortgages we can consider "clarity" to be determined by defaults and foreclosures which can also be accurately measured.

The color of a diamond can range from white to blue to lemon to "root beer." The demand for certain colors changes over time and this the value goes up and down according to fashion. Likewise the cut of a diamond can be of several types with demand for a certain cut affecting the value. At present the most sought after cut is the "Leo" diamond (no, I had nothing to do with this, unfortunately). The point here is that cut and color constitute "subjective" valuation of a diamond that can change over a wide range.

Subjective valuation of mortgages has to do with perceptions of their reliability. Thus they are subject to variable measures, rather than constant measures. Last year sub prime mortgages were consider to be the weakest mortgages and their values were smartly reduced, no matter what the "intrinsic" value may have been. Now prime rate mortgages are causing concern and they are being devalued smartly.

Another subject valuation stems from the fact that no one knows the full scope and scale of "securitized debt" built on mortgages. At first we panicked and cut valuations to the bone. However, as we get a better handle on this pile of "toxic assets" we are able to better value them.

I have argued since last summer to drop the "subjective" values derived from "mark-to-market" rules and value mortgages and mortgage based assets to their "intrinsic" value. This was done on April 2 of this year. This change will lead to banks increasing the values of their mortgages and mortgage based assets and thus allowing them to lend again.

P.S. More notes on diamonds:

1. Diamonds are found throughout the world, from the frozen wastes of Canada and Siberia to the steamy jungles of the Congo to the deserts of Namibia to the gentle hills of Arkansas.

2. The main suppliers of diamonds are South Africa and Botswana where they are mined and Namibia where they are culled from the desert sands.

3. For the last 100 years the supply and thus value of diamonds was controlled by the De Beers organization owned by the Oppenheimer family of South Africa. De Beers has now changed to a market strategy of being the "supplier of choice" in the wake of intense competition from Russia and Australia.

4. I once met the late, legendary patriarch of the Oppenheimer family, Harry Oppenheimer on a visit to Washington DC. I caught his attention when in response to his direct question I said I was negotiating the entry of the first American mining company into Mozambique, his back yard.

5. The diamond market rests squarely on its symbiotic relationship with love and marriage. If the demand by women for a diamond as the visible symbol of their marriage should change to some other stone, the market for diamonds would, get ready, drop like a rock.

Leo Cecchini
April 2009

TAX DAY

I should have published this item yesterday but better late than never.

I find the subject of taxes fascinating. If I had not been a diplomat I would most likely have had a career in taxes. Not the most glamorous of professions, in fact an often reviled one. Jesus Christ was reproached for "consorting with prostitutes and tax collectors." But a career with as secure a future as a mortician.

And taxes are the talk of today. I even saw President Obama's tax return spread around on the internet. Most likely you have just sent your return in.

My first thought is what my old tax teacher, who was one of those venerable professors who literally wrote the book on the subject, at least the one we used in his course, who said one warm afternoon, "There are two elements of a good tax, first they collect sufficient revenue and second they are easy to collect." Notice, he did not mention equity, fairness, income distribution and such. Just raise enough to pay the bills and don't waste time collecting them.

Well we know that taxes in the USA today do not raise sufficient funds, we pay allot of public expenses with borrowed funds. We also know that taxes in the USA are not easy to collect, just ask the current head of the IRS, Treasury Secretary Geithner. This has led to endless debate about improving our tax system, indeed it was a core feature of President Obama's election campaign.

I am partial to "taxes" raised by government monopolies. At different times governments have raised funds through government monopolies that sold goods, such as salt, matches, and tobacco to the public. This allows the government to raise taxes whenever it wants and it is easy to collect. However, it is difficult to control, since smugglers have always managed to steal some of the income.

A similar process was that of the Soviet Union. It owned the "means of production" or most of the industry in the country. It took its "taxes" from the sale of the products made. These "taxes" would have been profits in a capitalist system.

In general, however, taxes is a complex subject. I hear many Americans complain about the complex US tax code, they want a simpler formula. I reply that a thick tax code is the tax payer's friend, while a simple tax code favors the collector.

This complexity is made even more so when taken to the international arena. As a diplomat, I had to examine tax systems in other countries and at times help negotiate tax agreements between the USA and other countries. Let me assure you that there are more angles on taxes throughout the world than there stars in the sky.

So what to do? I personally go for the so-called "flat tax" that Steve Forbes used as his banner for his campaign for president a few years ago. As with all income taxes, it is a "direct" tax, rather than an "indirect" tax such as sales taxes. As income goes up, your tax payment increases, as opposed to a consumption tax.

It is generally calculated that for a flat tax to raise sufficient funds in the USA it would be about 15-17% of income. Interesting to note, Vice President Biden's joint tax return for 2008 showed that he paid about 17% of his adjusted income in federal tax. President Obama and his wife paid about 30% of their $2.5 million income in taxes.

Of course the complaint about the flat tax is that it is "regressive" which means it places a higher burden on low incomes than it does on high incomes, i.e taking 15% from an income of $20,000 means more hardship on the payer than taking 15% from an income of $1 million. But remember under our current tax system something less than 50% of income earners pay no tax. So the flat tax need only be applied to the wealthier half of the population.

Now I am sure some will also consider my comments here to be facile and I will admit that they only touch the subject. But when we do go about reorganizing our tax system let us keep in mind the words of my old tax teacher, "Make sure it collects sufficient revenue and that it is easy to collect."

Leo Cecchini
April 2009