I call them the “zombies,” the institutions being propped up by government bailouts. Companies like Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, etc. On an operating level, these walking dead are sucking the life out of the recovery.

Unlike in previous downturns, huge resources have been devoted to propping up entities that should have been taken out of the picture.

Of course, it’s easy to avoid zombies directly. No one is going to force you to take a position in GM. But if you really want to know where to look for the bargains – for companies that have the greatest potential for serious growth in real numbers and real markets – you need to look for what I call “zombie-free zones.”

Unfortunately, the United States and the United Kingdom are not “zombie-free” zones – and thus offer the worst hunting ground available right now.

If you’re looking for something solid, there are only three places to aim your portfolio. In fact, my top three picks are…

Germany, Korea, and Canada.  All have an abundance of companies you can invest in with at least a good chance of not being forced to compete with the undead.

The Problem with Zombies

You see, the problem with zombie banks and companies is that they soak up resources that should be devoted to living banks and companies, while providing unfair competition that makes their competitors unsound.

It’s difficult to see this effect at the moment, because the U.S. Federal Reserve is propping up the banking sector. It’s much clearer in the automobile sector, where the zombies GM and Chrysler make it more difficult for Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) to compete. There’s no question that the continued existence of Chrysler after its first non-bankruptcy in 1979 drastically weakened Ford in the 1980s and 1990s.

There’s the effect on wages too. The United Auto Workers (UAW) union is a huge supporter of the GM and Chrysler rescues, partly because they keep UAW members employed at above-market wage rates. One certainly can sympathize with the great many American autoworkers that have lost their jobs, but by keeping the sector over-employed, the government is driving up wages and hurting businesses – particularly Ford, the only member of Detroit’s “Big Three” to not ask for a bailout.

The same effect can be seen in the banking sector. The bonus pool at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is partly inflated by the continued employment of all the Citibankers who should have lost their jobs. Since banking pay scales got over-inflated during the bubble, it is reasonable now for them to come back down to earth, but that’s not going to happen while banks are in their current undead state.

Turning to the international market, it is immediately clear that Britain has the same problem as the United States, only on a larger scale. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (NYSE ADR: RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group PLC (NYSE: LYG), two of Britain’s largest banks have been kept open by the government. (Though, to be fair, Lloyds only got in trouble because the government made it acquire another failing bank, HBOS.)

Financial services is a huge part of Britain’s economy, which needs to diversify, but it won’t be able to diversify if so much of its talent is locked up in banking, and its best graduates are sucked into the high-paying dealing rooms of the City of London.

Japan has the same problem. Here the zombies are really ancient, cobwebbed skeletons left over from the 1990 collapse of Japan’s bubble. Some of them were put out of their misery by Junichiro Koizumi, the reformist prime minister, in 2003. Yet just this week we learned that many Japanese retailers face losses because of competition from The Daiei Inc. and Ito-Yokado Co. Ltd., gigantic retailing companies that were effectively bankrupt in 1993 but have been propped up by Japan’s banks. If you’re afraid of zombies, Japan is really creepy!

Historically, Europe is the continent where investors have suffered most from zombies propped up by governments. Certainly some countries, notably Italy, are attractive only for investment necrophiliacs.

Where to Find “Zombie-Free Zones”

There are some exceptions. Germany has only a few relatively small zombies. Both Sachsen LB and IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, the banks that got in trouble buying U.S. subprime mortgage-backed bonds, have been sold to other buyers – Sachsen to a larger Landesbank and IKB to the private equity group Lone Star Funds. Whatever their subsequent fate, those banks are currently being managed on a profit-maximizing basis.

There is a large older zombie, Hypo Real Estate Holding AG, the former Bayerische Hypothekenbank, which got in trouble in the late 1990s lending to real estate in the former East Germany, but that appears an isolated example. Industrially, Germany has been admirably rigorous in cleaning up its dead companies, and with its new pro-market government looks attractive for zombie-fearing money.

In Asia, South Korea is probably your best bet. The country had a big zombie problem ten years ago, but that problem has been cleared up with the bankruptcy and reorganization of several conglomerates and much of the banking system. This time around, there have been few major casualties and so the economy looks relatively zombie-free.

Finally, there is our northern neighbor, Canada. Canadian housing never became as over-extended as U.S. housing, and the Canadian bank bailout was correspondingly smaller, with none of the banks facing bankruptcy. Canada had a bad zombie problem fifteen years ago from decaying heavy industry, but today those zombies are long gone and the Canadian economy is resilient. The most recent bankruptcy, Nortel Networks Corp. (OTC: NRTLQ) in Jan. 2009, is being handled in a thoroughly market-oriented fashion, with its assets being sold off piecemeal. So your money is safe in Canada – lots of snow, but no zombies!

Source: Why You Need to Look at these Three ‘Zombie-Free Zones’

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Congress agreed Friday that the financial system – not the American taxpayer – should bear the costs of bank bailouts. Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), wants the banks to ante up $45 billion – three years’ worth of deposit-insurance premiums – to bail out the fund that insures bank deposits.

When it comes to bank stocks, we all know that there were a number of Money Morning readers shrewd enough to buy Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) shares when the foundering giant’s stock price was below $1 a share.

If you’re one of those investors, good for you: With Citi’s shares now trading at nearly $4.70 a share, that shrewdness – or courage – has been amply rewarded.

But the question we have to ask at this point is: Why would anyone buy banks stocks right now?

Bailouts Revisited

When the Bush administration bailed out the banks last autumn, I opposed the bailout. But I understood the rationale for it. The Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ) bankruptcy had clearly done a lot of damage to market confidence. Thus, a series of high-profile failures – however well merited – could push the market into a behavioral funk that might take years to emerge from.

After all, as we were incessantly reminded, the banks were all intimately inter-connected – not in the least by the diabolical credit-default-swap market. So a big failure could trigger a mass-market meltdown.

That justified the immediate bailout back then. But it did not justify the continued existence of those banks and other financial institutions – especially Citi, Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and insurance giant American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG) – a year after the bailout.

Even if there was an argument for preventing the immediate meltdown of those companies – to prevent panic – there was no good argument for allowing them to continue in business as zombies, distorting the market forever after. An orderly liquidation was what was really needed.

But if the plans called for these three bad actors to be liquidated, it should surely be happening by now. Two of the three have even kept their top management for the intervening year. The exception has been BofA, where Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis is now being shoved – kicking and screaming – toward the exit. (However, I have no doubt he’ll end up being well rewarded for the indignity).

Japan’s ‘Lost Decade’

Economically, keeping banks and other companies alive after they should be dead is the mistake Japan made back in the 1990s. After Japan’s massive stock market meltdown, most of the banks were technically insolvent. A decline in the value of the stocks the banks held had gnawed away their capital, while their assets were shredded by the collapse in the value of their real-estate loans.

Despite this, Japan opted to prop up many insolvent companies, which kept the country’s entire banking system on life support until 1998 – hence the “Lost Decade” of financial legend. And a true resolution of the problem did not come until it was forced by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in 2003. The result was more than a decade of economic stagnation and a mountain of public debt that actually exceeded 200% of gross domestic product (GDP).

For the banks themselves, the fallout can be even worse.

An ‘Artificial’ Market

At first blush, the profits of the last few months look pretty good. And the record bonuses being threatened on Wall Street suggest that all is fine. However, there are two problems. First, bank earnings have been propped up by an extraordinarily bank-friendly monetary policy, keeping short-term interest rates at close to zero and buying up more than $1.5 trillion of bad bank loans from the markets.

That simply can’t last. If it does, we’ll end up with a bad case of hyperinflation.

As for the bonuses, does anybody think that if Citi had gone bust, and ex-Citibankers were now selling apples on the street corners of New York, bonuses would be zooming so high?

If the market for overpaid bankers had been allowed to clear properly, they would no longer be overpaid.

If the Japan’s Nomura Securities (NYSE ADR: NMR) wanted to double its U.S. staff, as it announced Monday (an extraordinarily shareholder-hostile decision, given Nomura’s lousy U.S. track record), it could just lean out of its office and whistle, and a parade of ex-Citibankers, ex-AIG executives and ex-BofA execs would rush in, begging for scraps.

It appears that the concerns that Soros expressed are well justified.

A Grim Reaping For Bank Investors

Since there are more competitors in the market than there should be, once the Fed’s over-generous monetary policy is corrected, there will be too much competition, so bank profits will be squeezed. Conversely, there will be too many jobs in the industry, so banker pay scales will be artificially propped up.

If that’s a recipe for good shareholder returns, I’m a Dutchman.

There’s more. The populist fury against the banking system doesn’t look like it’s doing much about banker pay. However, it will almost certainly result in special extra taxes being levied on surviving banks, to pay for the bailouts.

The costs of those taxes will be passed through to shareholders, because competition from all the zombies that are still in business will prevent banker pay from being squeezed much. The extra levies that Bair, the FDIC chief, is employing to keep the deposit-insurance fund solvent also will fall on banks, although in this case it will be the small and medium-sized that will suffer the worst.

Squeezed profits, expensive staff, extra taxes and special FDIC levies – it doesn’t look to me as if there will be much left for bank shareholders.

Expect 2010 to be a grim year for them.

Source: Hidden Traps Make Bank Stocks a Bad Deal

On one hand, the $130 billion he spent on acquisitions – FleetBoston Financial Corp., MBNA Corp., LaSalle Bank Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., Charles Schwab Corp.’s (Nasdaq: SCHW) U.S. Trust private banking unit and Merrill Lynch – that more than tripled the size of Bank of America, making it the largest U.S. lender both by assets and deposits.

On the other, his open-wallet policy and the example it set forth almost perfectly encapsulates the boom, bust and nascent rebound of the U.S. housing and banking crisis – which later became the financial plague that devastated markets all over the world.

In the second half of 2007, the extent of the U.S. housing crisis began to crystallize when Countrywide’s freewheeling subprime-lending policy irreversibly sank the nation’s largest home lender. Lewis moved in and acquired the troubled lender for $4 billion the following January, and in doing so, he put Bank of America on the hook for Countrywide $1.5 trillion loan portfolio.

In the second half of 2008, the extent of the how much havoc the destruction of investment banks and brokerage firms would wreak upon the world became clear. The vortex of it was Sept. 15, the day the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ) declared bankruptcy and Bank of America agreed to pay $29 billion for world’s largest brokerage firm, Merrill Lynch, which probably would have failed had it not found a partner.

Lewis’ spending got Bank of America into this mess. The question now is whether continued  spending – using the $45 billion bailout courtesy of the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) – will get BofA out of it.

And Lewis seems to acknowledge both in the news release announcing his voluntary departure.

“Bank of America is well positioned to meet the continuing challenges of the economy and markets,” Lewis said. “We are in position to begin to repay the federal government’s TARP investments. For these reasons, I decided now is the time to begin to transition to the next generation of leadership at Bank of America.”

Lewis naturally defends his actions just as much as critics chide him for them.

“Their loan portfolio is horrible looking and it’s not going to be easy for them,” Mike Williams, research director at Gradient Analytics in Scottsdale, Arizona, said in a Bloomberg News interview before Lewis announced his departure. “They would have been better off without the Merrill and Countrywide acquisitions over the next few years.”

Money Morning Contributing Editor Martin Hutchinson, a leading banking expert, says that Bank of America has a very difficult journey ahead of it.

“Lewis followed [predecessor CEO Hugh] McColl’s strategy of expanding BofA by acquisition,” he said. “The trouble is that his last 2 deals were both lousy. Countrywide was at the epicenter of all that was bad about housing finance, and that was obvious in January 2008, when he bought it. Just a terrible deal.”

In fact, Hutchinson believes there’s only one viable option for Bank of America.

“BofA will have to be broken up, but may need to be sorted out by a liquidator/ the government,” he said.

Spinning Merrill

The Merrill merger was perhaps the defining moment in Lewis’ tenure, and he Lewis has played the victim and hero of the saga.

Lewis testified that U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. pressured him not only to move ahead with a merger with Merrill Lynch despite reservations, but also to stay quiet about the mounting losses at the crumbling investment bank.

And in a note to employees announcing his departure, he took credit for the fact that Merrill has contributed 24% to the Bank of America’s first-half profit, boosted trading and investment-banking revenue, Bloomberg reported.

“I am gratified that even some of the critics of our acquisition of Merrill Lynch have come to acknowledge how well the deal is working out for our clients,” Lewis wrote. “This journey has been a rocky one and not for the faint of heart, but perseverance is paying off.”

But to the rest of the world, Lewis was most often seen sitting under the hot light of probes by Congress, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and New York’s attorney general all trying to determine if Lewis misled investors about Merrill’s losses and bonuses.

And even if shareholders agreed with Lewis’ decisions, they didn’t prefer him to be the company’s face. In April, shareholders voted 50.34% in favor of stripping Lewis of his chairman title.

Changing of the Guard

When Lewis steps down from his post Dec. 31, he joins the ranks of fellow financial firm executives – James Cayne of The Bear Stearns Cos., Charles Prince of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Stanley O’Neal of Merrill, Kennedy Thompson of Wachovia and Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers, John Thain of  Merrill Lynch – that resigned, many in disgrace, either during or in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Among the survivors, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), and Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM).

Bank of America said it will find a replacement by Lewis’ last day, and media outlets have already began making lists of possible successors.

Among the names frequently mentioned:

• Brian Moynihan, head of Bank of America’s consumer and small business banking unit.
• Sallie Krawcheck, former Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) CFO and president of Bank of America’s global wealth and investment management unit.
• Tom Montag, former Merrill executive and head of Bank of America’s corporate and investment banking unit.

An outsider might well be the best choice, says Money Morning’s Hutchinson.

Lewis is “leaving a company that no human being could manage, with vast problems, and far too broad a franchise,” Hutchinson said. “North Carolina retail bankers haven’t a clue how to run a top international investment bank like Merrill and vice versa. There’s nobody available to succeed him that can do the job.”

Source: Boom, Bust and Rebuild: Bank of America and the Kenneth Lewis Legacy

Now, JPMorgan Chase & Co.  (NYSE: JPM) has issued a report suggesting that investment-banking returns on capital will be sharply down over the next few years. Perhaps this will be only a moderate downturn.

However, there’s also a good chance that labor-cost pressures – combined with tightening margins – will take the likes of JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) down a path similar to that of General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GRM) and Chrysler Group LLP, both of which earlier this year declared bankruptcy.

Challenging Headwinds

JPMorgan anticipates that the regulatory changes that are likely to take place over the next year or so will reduce investment banks’ return on equity (ROE) to around 11% – down from its previous forecast of 15%.

More capital will be needed for trading activity, which naturally reduces the return on capital from that activity. However, there will also be effects from new transparency requirements on derivatives. (Most – if not all – derivatives will have to be traded and cleared across central exchanges.) And tighter limits on commodities positions will prevent firms from cornering less-active markets.

This effect will be concentrated on investment banks themselves – firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) – as well as on the investment banking activities of such firms as Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS), Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), and JPMorgan Chase.

Old-fashioned commercial banking, on the other hand, will likely become somewhat more profitable. That’s because the sharp reduction in securitization activity has reduced the excessive competition for much of the lending business. It’s also improved the lending business profitability.

Investment banks will have to reduce their headcount by another 3% from present levels and cut their overall cost per employee by another 15%, to around $543,000 in 2011, according to the JPMorgan study.

What agony! (Actually, that joke is not quite fair – the cost per employee includes the building, the equipment and all the fancy information services, so the take-home is much less. Even so, these guys – at least those who keep their jobs – won’t starve.)

The New Reality

We are so used to investment banking growing and becoming increasingly more profitable – on virtually an uninterrupted basis – that we have never even considered what might happen if that trend were to reverse.

Even after last year’s crash, Goldman Sachs reported record second quarter profits in 2009. Spreads in all kinds of trading widened dramatically and Goldman found its market share dramatically increased after the demise of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ).

But here’s the thing: The trillions of dollars poured into the markets by the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Federal Reserve were the driving force behind those profits. Investment banks like Goldman weren’t just given a level playing field – they were given one that was essentially (and artificially) cleared of obstacles. Even the few “competitors” that remained were hobbled by their past mismanagement.

Investment banking is not particularly difficult or intellectually challenging. And the proliferation of new and complex products that turbocharged the profit growth of investment banks during the past few decades won’t continue. Any new financial product will be forced to run a gauntlet of regulatory bureaucrats before being allowed to emerge.

Had the credit-default swap (CDS) been invented today, can anyone doubt that it would have been fenced in by restrictions so onerous that the damaging derivative would have never made it to market? The painful memories of last year’s near-unraveling of the global financial markets are still fresh. So it’s unlikely that investment banks would be able to get the regulatory nod for a big-risk strategy that is likely to result in a taxpayer bailout.

The bottom line is clear: The reduction in U.S. investment banking profitability is likely to be permanent, with various rent-seeking scams blocked. In this post-crisis era, investment pools from China, the Middle East and other parts of Asia – backed by increasingly sophisticated financial players in those markets – will acquire the necessary capabilities to enter the market and further reduce the returns of domestic investment banks.

We have seen this before: An industry, previously very profitable, finds itself hemmed in by government restrictions and its most-profitable products get regulated out of existence. Foreign competition enters the market and grinds away at the domestic market share.

The natural reduction of competitors doesn’t happen, as one or more are bailed out by taxpayers and survive to continue competing for the business.  Legacy costs of remuneration promises made when things were better place an ever-increasing burden on the industry’s returns. Reducing the work force pay becomes very difficult, as the workers have great power over production and resist the necessary downsizing of their excessive pay.

Sound familiar? Last time, it was the U.S. auto industry, and the eventual result was the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. Reducing pay to a work force when market conditions become harsh is extremely difficult, if now downright impossible.

Of course, investment bankers have no United Automobile Workers (UAW) representing them. But shareholders will know from past experience that the investment-banking work force’s ability to suck up available profits is huge, whereas losses suddenly devolve back on shareholders.

Don’t forget, militant autoworkers could only beat up “scabs” when their livelihood was threatened. Militant traders could re-jig the computer systems so that the trading algorithms worked backwards, producing losses instead of profits. In an era of credit default swaps and millisecond trading, this could wipe out shareholders in half an hour of frantic activity before anyone realized what had gone wrong in an era of credit default swaps and millisecond trading.

It may take a couple of decades for the investment banking business to decline, as it did for the much larger U.S. auto industry. But by 2030, collapse could loom.

The comparison isn’t a stretch. In fact, it wasn’t just a ticker-symbol letter – “G” – that  the two companies shared: GS for Goldman Sachs, and GM when General Motors was still a public company. It turns out that their underlying business models also shared similar strategic flaws. And those flaws put the two on a similar path to ruin at the hands of forces that grew out of the crises in their particular industries – crises that they each helped create.

Source: Could Goldman Sachs Share GM’s Fate?

But since then, little progress has been made on financial regulatory reform, and many of the large investment banks that received billions of dollars in government bailouts are booking huge profits on the same risky wagers they were making before the financial crisis.

In fact, the five biggest banks in the country – Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Wells Fargo Corp. (NYSE: WFC), and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC)  – posted second quarter profits totaling $13 billion.

That’s more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and almost two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007, when the economy was still strong, CNBC reported.

Goldman Sachs reported record earnings in the second quarter. As was the case before the financial meltdown, Goldman leaned heavily on its trading desk for revenue. Trading revenue accounted for 50% of the firm’s total revenue. At $6.8 billion, trading revenue was up 186% from the second quarter of 2008.

The bank also saw a massive bump in equity trading where revenue jumped to $2.2 billion – a 110% quarterly increase.

The story was much the same at JPMorgan whose investment-banking operations generated $1.47 billion of profit, almost quadruple the amount earned in last year’s second quarter.

Investment-banking fees – which zoomed 29% from a year ago and 62% from the first quarter – totaled $2.2 billion, and were a “record for any investment bank in any quarter,” according to JPMorgan Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Cavanagh.

Citigroup and Bank of America- which received some $45 billion in government bailout funds – also topped profit estimates in the second quarter.

Of course, it’s not the fact that Wall Street has returned to profitability that’s raised the hackles of analysts, it’s that Wall Street firms are turning huge profits by employing much of the same risky behavior that led to Lehman’s undoing.

“We’re seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels,” Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund, told CNBC.

For instance, banks are still making bets that put far more money at stake than they have on hand to cover potential losses. The five biggest banks average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion in the second quarter, up 76% from two years ago, according to regulatory filings.

Even more disconcerting is that banks are still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them as investments, which is precisely the behavior that helped inflate the real estate bubble and lead to the financial meltdown.

With the full blessings of ratings agencies, banks are repackaging their money-losing securities into higher-rated ones called re-securitization of real estate mortgage investment conduits, or “re-remics,” The New York Times reported. At least $30 billion in residential re-remics have been done this year, according to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

Wall Street bankers have even set out to create new and exotic financial products, including the securitized life insurance policies.

Indeed, bankers plan to buy so-called “life settlements,” which are life insurance policies that sick and elderly people sell for cash, and package them into bonds for investors. This essentially creates a whole new bond market that lets firms gamble on the lives of thousands of people.

Many analysts fear that insurers will have to raise premiums, because they could end up paying more death claims out to investors than they previously had anticipated. That is, if a policy is purchased and packaged into a security, investors will keep paying the premiums that might have otherwise been abandoned by policyholders. If that’s the case insurance companies will have based their premiums on false assumptions.

“The securitization of life settlements adds another element of possible risk to an industry that is already in need of enhanced regulations, more transparency and consumer safeguards,” U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., told The Times.

Meanwhile, the regulatory overhaul that U.S. President Barack Obama proposed back in June has been derailed by lobbyists and cast aside by a Congress that is preoccupied with the heated debate over healthcare reform.

Obama’s Overhaul Losing Traction

President Obama on June 17 proposed a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. financial regulatory system.

Under President Obama’s proposal:

• Hedge funds and other private pools of capital would have to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
• Many financial institutions would be required to increase capital reserves to protect against unexpected losses, and companies would also have to keep part of the credit risk for loans they have packaged into securities.
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) would have the power to seize and break up large financial companies that are under duress.
• The U.S. Federal Reserve would be granted more powers over payments and settlements systems in U.S. financial markets to prevent a breakdown that officials fear could destabilize the economy.
• The Office of Thrift Supervision would be merged with the Office of the Comptroller of Currency.
• A new consumer protection agency would be created. That agency would write rules related to mortgages, credit cards and other consumer products, taking away powers previously held by the Fed.

However, the proposal has lost much of the momentum it would have had earlier this year. Now that the U.S. economy is seemingly back on track and many banks have paid back their huge government loans, much of the anger over Wall Street’s hand in the financial crisis has dissipated.

“As we get a little more distance from the actual collapse and things begin to stabilize, then people think we don’t need to take as much drastic action,” Michael Bernstein, an expert in political and economic history who is currently serving as provost at Tulane University, told NPR. “That’s a very disappointing reality.”

In fact, a large portion of the anti-business rhetoric that provided the backdrop to the financial crisis has been replaced by public rants against big government and the vehement debate over healthcare reform that has consumed Congress.

“The president has offered a reform proposal that would grant broad new authorities to government bureaucrats while intruding in private markets and restricting personal choice,” Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the senior Republican on the House Financial Services Committee told The Times. “The obvious lesson of the events of September 2008 is that we need smarter regulation, not more regulation, not more government bureaucracy, and not more incentives to engage in harmful business practices.”

Meanwhile, big financial institutions and community banks have unified against several pillars of the proposal, including the creation of a new consumer protection agency, and tighter regulation and more transparency regarding derivatives and credit default swaps – the very instruments that have been blamed for exacerbating the financial crisis. They’ve also lobbied hard against restrictions on executive pay, The Times reported.

On the one-year anniversary of Lehman’s collapse, President Obama again sounded the call for reform, warning that “there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment.”

“I want everybody here to hear my words,” Obama said in a speech at Federal Hall in New York. “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.”

Still, many in Congress continue to bristle at the prospect of more government oversight.

“President Obama supports changes that push us in the wrong direction,” Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told The Washington Times.

But as Congress continues to substitute rhetoric for action, America’s largest financial institutions are growing more powerful and analysts see a precious opportunity for real reform slipping away.

“The clock is ticking and we’re at a cross roads,” Travis Plunkett, chief lobbyist for the Consumer Federation of America, told CNNMoney. “If we don’t see a substantial move this fall, financial reform may wither on the vine.”

Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who leads the House Financial Services Committee and largely supports Obama’s plan, will begin marking up the bill in October and is expected to have legislation to the floor of the House by the end of next month or early November.

Source: Wall Street Back to Business as Obama’s Regulatory Overhaul Loses Momentum

Commercial property values in the U.S. have plummeted 36% since peaking in 2007, and the commercial real estate market is unlikely to recover before 2012, according to the quarterly PricewaterhouseCoopers Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey, released yesterday (Tuesday).

Office rents in New York and San Francisco may drop 20% through next year, the survey found.

“The biggest problem is that commercial real estate lags what happens in the economy,” Susan Smith, who is the director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ real estate advisory practice and editor-in-chief of the survey, told Bloomberg News. “Companies are looking for ways to cut costs, many are continuing to reduce workers and are continuing to reduce their space needs.”

That means many of the banks that made commercial real estate have only realized a fraction of their losses. And as those losses continue to mount, we’re likely to see more and more bank failures.

Roughly $530 billion in mortgage-backed securities are due for refinancing between now and 2011, according to property researcher Foresight Analytics LLC. Foresight estimates that the U.S. banking sector could incur as much as $250 billion in commercial real estate losses, enough to cause a as many as 700 banks to fail, in that time.

The FDIC’s “problem list,” or banks that run a higher risk of failure, grew to 416 in the second quarter, up from 305 in the first quarter. That’s the highest number since the second quarter of 1994, when there were 434 banks on the list.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) has the largest share of the $3.1 trillion commercial debt market with 16.5% of its $821 billion loan portfolio invested. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a distant second with 5.4% of its portfolio invested in commercial loans, followed by Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) with 3.4%.

However, smaller banks – 92 of which have already folded this year compared to 25 last year – are even more at risk because they will likely have a harder time accessing the crucial capital to offset rising defaults, according to the TARP-inspired Congressional Oversight Panel’s August Oversight Report.

“Unlike large banks that can sustain a certain number of defaults, even of large commercial loans, smaller banks may have far more difficulty in absorbing more than a few large loan losses,” the panel said. “The FDIC’s statement that ‘banks have been able to raise capital without having to sell bad assets through the LLP’ may not reflect the reality for these banks.”

Indeed, the number of smaller banks expected to seized by the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is forecast to accelerate by economists. More than 150 publicly traded U.S. banks have nonperforming loans that account for 5% of their assets, according to the report.

The panel said rising commercial real estate loan defaults may prompt the need for $12 billion to $14 billion more in TARP funds as well as well as stress tests for smaller banks.

The early 1990s saw a devastating crash of the real estate market, but this coming time around the result could be far worse. The $3.1 trillion that makes up the commercial real estate debt market is three times the size it was during the early 1990s – meaning the potential for losses is steeper than ever before.

In 1993, less than 2% of U.S. banks and thrifts had an exposure to commercial real estate that was more than five times their Tier I capital. By the end of last year, that ratio had spiked to 12%, involving about 800 banks and thrifts.

And this time around – compared to the early 1990s – banks left themselves no margin of safety in the form of “Tier I Capital” – a measure of how well a lender can navigate serious levels of losses. The higher the ratio, the less likely a lender will be able to work its way through a stretch when loans start going bad.

Source: Bank Failures Could Surge as Commercial Real Estate Losses Continue to Mount

“Banks recover to their levels before the fall of Lehman,” is a headline in this Monday’s El Pais from Madrid.

“Public assistance enables the world’s largest 15 financial firms to return to the capitalization they had in September 2008,” the article continues. The largest of the largest, HSBC, is now judged to be worth $186 billion, according to the stock market. China’s ICBC is on its heels, with a market cap of $178 billion. BNP Paribas is 7th at $87 billion.

We will overlook the compromising detail that banks actually lost money in the last quarter – more than $3 billion. And let’s forget that China’s major banks are sitting on mega-losses from more than eight years ago (to say nothing of the more recent losses). Western banks, too, still have billions in assets whose real worth is an open question…and subject to quick reconsideration…

El Pais goes on to report something intriguing: “The two big Spanish banks leave the crisis stronger.”

Ah. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. The world economy is recovering, or so people believe. Stocks are going up – led by the banks. But are the undead of the banking world really stronger?

Ha ha…don’t make us laugh.

But the world seems to believe it. The Wall Street Journal reports that just five big financial stocks are behind the stock market’s rally. Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM), Citigroup (NYSE:C), Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE), Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) and AIG account for nearly a third of market’s daily turnover. Seems everyone is speculating on the banks…and moving them higher.

You will recall, dear reader, the banks made a fortune during the bubble years. You may also recall that they made so much money that when the bubble years came to a close, that they were almost all broke. Without hasty action from the feds, it would have been the end of the road for every major bank on Wall Street. As it was, even with government help, none of them survived intact. They all either went bankrupt, were sold off, or got bailouts with strings attached.

What busted the banks was too much of a bad thing. They made their money by peddling debt. In order to move the stuff, they convinced clients that their products were good safe investments – even leveraged derivatives backed by subprime mortgages! Such good salesmen were they that they even convinced themselves. When the crisis came, they realized that they had been buyers of the debt…as well as sellers of it. What could they do with it…except sell it to the feds?

But the whole financial industry is coming back to life. According to El Pais, it’s back…and it’s better than ever.

But wait? How could that be? Hasn’t the world entered the worst recession since the great depression? How could lending money be such a good business? People don’t borrow in a recession.

Strategic Short Report’s Dan Amoss is just as skeptical. “The banking system has no experience managing through the current ‘negative home equity’ environment,” he tells us. “This is an environment in which mortgage rates are already about as low as they can get and consumer balance sheets are as stressed as ever. Due to the nonrecourse nature of mortgages, most borrowers have no financial incentive to keep paying. Many are choosing to mail the keys back to the lender.

“This problem will cap the upside of bank stocks for years to come, so the sector will offer lots of short selling opportunities.”

Borrowing by households has fallen off a cliff. Instead of borrowing, they’re paying back debt at the fastest rate since the ’50s. No money to be made there.

How about commercial and business loans? Are you kidding? Businesses are cutting back too. Businesses borrow to expand…and there is no expansion going on. This is a contraction. Credit is contracting along with everything else.

Then, how could the banks make money? Let’s refer to that news item again. Oh…there are the magic words: “Public assistance enables…”

The banks are making money the same way Detroit is making money…dishonestly and temporarily. Instead of doing honest deals with willing and able counterparties, the banks are pulling a fast one. Their money comes, ultimately, from the poor taxpayer…the poor sap who funds all the government’s giveaways. The private sector lived far beyond its means during the bubble years. People wasted their money they didn’t have on things they didn’t need. Now, they try to save their money. But now the government wastes their money for them.

Speaking of which…a quick note on the Cash for Clunkers program. Numbers to be released today are expected to show a peak in sales in August caused by the feds’ incentives. President Obama calls the program a showcase, proving how effective government can be at getting the economy back on the road.

But let’s go back to basics. It’s a sham when people waste their own money. It’s a crime when they waste other peoples’ money. Prosperity comes from accumulating (saving) capital…and using it to increase productive capacity. The formula is pretty simple: Save your money. Invest it in productive business. The Clunkers program encouraged people to do the opposite – consume capital, other peoples’ capital.

’Nuff said.

We were going to let Ted Kennedy go to his grave without mention here at The Daily Reckoning. The newspapers, television and radio shows have mentioned it enough. Even the foreign press has taken note of the event.

We might have let it go, but we have taken an oath: whenever we see a bubble we must pop it. And there is a bubble in Kennedy worship so big it threatens to blot out the sun. Today, we approach with a needle.

No writer has failed to mention that Mr. Kennedy was not the first of the clan die. The press cannot resist hero worship – especially when its heroes die young.

The Kennedy brothers could have lived comfortably all their lives on their father’s liquor money. Instead, they took up the banner of ‘public service’ and wrapped themselves in it so tightly it suffocated them all. The oldest of the band was killed in WWII. Ted Kennedy’s grave lies only 100 feet from his brother, Robert, killed in 1968 while running for president. And only another 100 feet from another brother who was shot down five years earlier. With that kind of curse on a family, you’d think the younger bro would have gone back into the liquor business. Instead, the younger held his head up…headed for glory…and drove off a bridge. The bridge probably saved him. Had he made it beyond the primaries, some nutcase would have certainly taken a shot at him.

The bridge incident would have sunk a lesser man – that is, one who lacked the name, family connections, lawyers, and money of Ted Kennedy. It probably would have sunk a more reflective, more sensitive man too. A man with a sharper conscience might have seen the girl’s face in his dreams and have been driven to drink…eventually drowning himself in his own guilt, like a character from a Russian novel. But Kennedy had the ability to rise above shame and put scandal behind him, with some helpful amnesia from the press. Chappaquiddick is reported in today’s press as though it were a personal triumph. A lesser man would have gone to jail for manslaughter; Kennedy went on to become the ‘lion of the Senate.’ He merely gave up his presidential aspirations and buckled down to the life of a Senate hack. The eulogies tell us that driving off the bridge, drunk, made him what he was: “the greatest legislator of all time,” as the President put it.

No, we never shared the conservatives’ loathing for the man. We never met him. Had we known him personally, we probably would have found him as agreeable a drinking companion as anyone else. But we come neither to bury Ted Kennedy, nor to praise him…we merely poke fun at the world that idolizes him.

The fact that the Kennedys committed themselves to ‘public service’ seemed to make them part of the furniture of public life. Everywhere you looked, there they were. The newspapers loved them. Everyone knew what they looked like. Hairdressers knew their private lives. Taxi drivers suffered their personal tragedies as if they were one of the family.

But the Kennedys were more than just furniture. First, because they were not particularly useful…you couldn’t sit on them or dine on them. More importantly, when it came to decorating the republic, they were the ones who wanted to arrange the furniture.

All the obituaries hammered this point as if they were hardening steel: “He devote his life to public causes…” says one. “He fought for the poor and the downtrodden…” says another.

He said so himself. In a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, Kennedy seemed to write his own obituary. He allowed as how he had “done his best to champion the rights of the poor and to open doors of economic opportunity. I’ve worked to welcome the immigrant, fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education…”

USA Today provides a typical illustration of the Senator’s magnanimity and generosity.

A woman with an autistic son asked the government for help. “The Haitian immigrant wrote to her senator, ‘the only one who can understand what it takes to raise a child with disabilities.’” (Kennedy’s son lost a leg and his sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled. This, according to USA Today, gave him “a connection with the public’s private pain.”)

“Within three weeks,” the news item continues, “they secured vocational and life skills training [for the son]…that allowed his mother to finally earn a college degree last year at age 58.

“I have my life back and my son is no longer under by my care 24 hours a day…”

No…now he’s under someone else’s care! Kennedy redecorated. He moved the cost of caring for the poor fellow on to someone else.

And what does the mother do with her free time? She’s now a “community organizer.” You can bet she’s organizing more transfers…of money from the people who earned it to the people who didn’t.

“He was always reaching out,” said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. Yes, he was always re-arranging the furniture. And USA Today told us that he inspired a whole race of redecorators – people infected by a desire for ‘public service.’

“Hundreds of lesser-known former Kennedy staffers and campaign volunteers…followed him into public service…The alumni of his office pepper the government…”

But what is the consequence of all this meddling? Is the nation better off for it? None of the obituaries we saw even raised the question. How do you know if something is genuinely a public service? Is it a public service when you take money from one person and give it to another? The press seems to think so. Is it a public service when you load up the nation with hundreds of billions worth of programs and pet projects?

Kennedy was a prolific proposer…a serial legislator…a Tom Friedman with a Senate seat. Surely some conservative think tank has totted up the cost of all his legislation. And surely it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Where did the money come from? It had to come from somewhere. It has to come from people who had ideas and plans of their own…people who had put the couch under the window and the TV in front of the easy chair, just the way they wanted it. Were they really any better off when Kennedy moved things around? Was the republic stronger, healthier, more prosperous and more honest after the Kennedy brothers got through with it?

We leave you with the question.

As for Ted Kennedy, the man was a scalawag. But he was God’s scalawag; and all His creatures deserve our respect. And now that he’s in the dirt, God will do with him as He chooses. RIP.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: The Undead of the Banking World

However, the two largest recipients of TARP money – Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) – have yet to pay back their loans and the government is still exposed to possible losses from those two heavyweights, as well as from smaller U.S. banks.

The government netted roughly $4 billion – the equivalent of a 15% annual return – from  eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, according to calculations by The New York Times.

Those financial institutions consist of:

• Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) – $1.4 billion in profit.
• Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) – $1.3 billion in profit.
• American Express Co. (NYSE: AXP) – $414 million in profit.
• Northern Trust Corp. (NYSE: NTRS), The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE: BK),    State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB) and BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) – $100 million to $334 million in profit.
• Fourteen smaller banks that have repaid their debt – $35 million in profit.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) and Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF) could yield an additional profit of more than $3.1 billion in the coming month, but the final number is dependent on how much they will pay to buy back their warrants, The Times said.

Additionally, the U.S. Federal Reserve earned $16.4 billion through the first six months of the year, thanks to a range of rescue programs – including loans to investment banks and purchases of mortgage-backed securities – while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) saw a profit of more than $7 billion on the fees it charged through a program that guaranteed debt issued by banks. Still, the FDIC has agreed to assume most of the risk on $80 billion in loans and other assets, and expects to eventually have to cover $14 billion in future losses on deals cut so far, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“Taxpayers should heave a sigh of relief that the investment in banks protected them from even more catastrophic losses from more bank failures,” said Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at the New York University’s Stern School of Business.

The government said last year that its decision to purchase preferred shares from hundreds of banks ravaged by mortgage defaults would yield a positive return, including a 5% quarterly dividend and warrants to buy stock in the banks at a set price over 10 years.

As many banks stanched their losses and began to turn a profit, the government authorized them to buy back the preferred stock, make the dividend payments for each quarter since October. Banks also were permitted to buy back the warrants, which had a low fixed price – and which provided therefore provided a windfall for the government as the markets rallied.

The U.S. should consider imposing an automatic ban on dividend payments by lenders when “the bank stock price plummets and the banks aren’t doing well,” New York Federal Reserve Chairman William Dudley told CNBC, expressing concern over how the payouts could end up dissipating the banks’ capital.

Should a bank lose capital because of a falling stock price, it could raise more capital by issuing debt that is convertible, Dudley said.

Had private investors taken matching stakes in the banks in October, they would have tripled their investment to roughly $12 billion, or 44% on an annual basis, according to University of Louisiana at Lafayette finance professor Linus Wilson, who analyzed the data for The Times. But there’s a good reason for that. Under this hypothetical scenario, the private investors would have demanded a higher rate of return, bought in at a lower price, or both – because of the high risk that they would have been incurring.

But the government wasn’t in this to make a profit – it was working to stabilize a financial system that was quickly losing the public’s confidence, experts note.

“Had these banks tried to raise money any other way, they probably would have had to pay quite a bit more than the government received,” Espen Robak, head of Pluris Valuation Advisors, which analyzes the value of large financial institutions, told The Times.

Threat Posed by Loss-Shares

Despite the encouraging news that taxpayers are getting strong returns on their reluctant investments, the loan guarantees invested in the two largest TARP recipients – Citigroup and Bank of America – have not yet been repaid. Citi received $50 billion in TARP funds, while BofA got $45 billion.

In the last month, Citigroup has seen its stock surge roughly 58%, along with a 19% return in the shares of BofA, which leaves the U.S. government sitting on a combined $18 billion of profits from the warrants it purchased last year.

Those banks also hold troubled mortgages and other loans that no one can put a value on – which is why these so-called “toxic assets” have yet to attract buyers.

“No one has a good handle how much is out there,” Elizabeth Warren, the chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel who acts as the so-called “TARP watchdog,” told Reuters Television in an interview last month. “Here we are 10 months into this crisis…and we can’t tell you what the dollar value is.”

More than 50 deals brokered by the FDIC to absorb losses at small banks affected by the financial crisis still remain in place. These agreements to assume the risk of loans and other assets from the consolidation of failed banks are known as “loss-shares,” and are an important inducement for healthy banks to take over busted institutions.

The FDIC brokered the sale of Alabama’s Colonial BancGroup Inc.’s (OTC: CBCGQ) deposits to BB&T after Colonial failed. It also agreed to help BB&T buy Colonial’s $15 billion portfolio of loans and other assets and absorb over 80% of any future losses. Under the deal, BB&T’s losses are capped at $500 million and – in the unlikely event the entire portfolio becomes worthless – the FDIC is on the hook to cover the rest.

The FDIC sees these deals as a way to keep loans and other assets in the private sector, as well as mitigate the cost of cleaning up the industry.

It would cost the FDIC considerably more to simply liquidate the assets of failed banks, especially with more than 400 banks on its “problem list.” Loss-share deals will cost $11 billion less than if the agency seized assets and sold them, The Journal said, citing the FDIC.

So far this year, 109 banks have failed – quadruple the amount of failures in 2008. The FDIC’s recouping any lost money from the loss-share deals, many of which are in place for up to 10 years, is dependent on the recovery of the economy

Some worry that bankers may tire of the partnerships with the FDIC and not work toward fixing bad loans because the bulk of the losses will fall to the government. But agency officials maintain that because banks still have a “material” exposure, they will be reluctant to do this.

“There is certainly an incentive for the banks to play fair and do right, but there is never a limit on the ability of the private sector to shift cost to the government,” former FDIC general counsel John Douglas told The Journal.

A typical deal has the FDIC agreeing to cover 80% of future losses on a big portion of the assets, and 95% on the rest. However, the FDIC does not expect to see the 95% scenario play out on any of the deals it has made so far.

Source: U.S. Turning Profit on TARP, but Big Loans Remain in Banks’ Hands

Three of the financial institutions that were key catalysts to the global financial crisis – and that owe the federal government billions of dollars as a direct result of those problems – have seen their shares triple in price so far this month.

That could signal that a big rebound in bank-sector earnings is just around the corner. Or it could be merely a speculative “short squeeze” that all but confirms that these stocks are basically worthless.

Shares of busted insurer American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) have soared from $13.14 to $50.23, as of Friday’s close, a gain of 282.3% so far this month. Shares of mortgage giants Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) and Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) posted similar gains,MarketWatch.com reported. Fannie’s shares advanced from 58 cents to $2.04, an increase of 251.7%. Freddie’s shares zoomed from 62 cents to $2.40 each, a gain of 287.1%.

AIG actually gained for a ninth straight day Friday, reaching a 10-month high, as short-shelling speculators got squeezed and were forced to buy back the shares they’d sold short, traders told MarketWatch. AIG has 21% of its “float” – shares available to the public sold short, the sixth-highest proportion in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, according toBloomberg News.

But the gains might also sign that the banking sector is poised for a major profit rebound, according to some new analyst research.

“Dating back to 1995, bank-sector outperformance has typically preceded [earnings-per-share] growth outperformance by one to two quarters,” Stifel Nicolaus & Co. (NYSE: SN) analysts wrote in a market-research note last week. “With sector earnings growth expected to exceed that of the general market in mid-2010, we question whether we will see another leg down in this rally before year-end. On the other hand, perhaps we should question the current growth expectations for the sector?”

Trading in financial-services stocks has dominated the stock-market volume this month. So-called “day traders” have gravitated to once-questionable financial stocks and helped fuel those stunning gains – and huge volumes.

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), for instance, has seen daily trading volume topping 1 billion shares this week. The stock closed above $5.05 on Thursday and $5.23 on Friday. That represents a 439% gain from its 52-week low of 97 cents a share.

Financial stocks have led the market’s slingshot higher from the early March lows. Trading has been fierce in beaten-down shares of some companies that participated in the bailout, such as AIG, Citi and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC).

The New York-based AIG is trying to sell assets to repay government loans after accepting $182.5 billion in U.S. bailout money. AIG recently reported a profit for its second quarter – after having posted six straight quarters in the red. It engineered a so-called “reverse stock split,” in which AIG gave investors one new share for every 20 they turned in. The company did this to avoid a delisting action. That enhanced the short squeeze, since there were fewer shares available to for short-sellers to repurchase and “cover” their bets.

Despite the torrid run that AIG’s shares have been on, the insurance company’s bonds still trade at levels indicating the company’s shares may be worthless, Peter Boockvar, an equity strategist at Miller Tabak & Co., told Bloomberg.

“The value of the company is still the same,” Boockvar said. “AIG bonds tell you that the equity is possibly worth nothing and that they may not be able to pay back the government.”

AIG’s $3.24 billion of 8.25% bonds due in 2018 are quoted at 79 cents on the dollar, to yield 12.2%, Bloomberg reported. The insurer’s $4 billion of 8.175% percent bonds due in 2058 are quoted at 49.5 cents on the dollar to yield 16.7% Bloomberg said.

The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSE: XLF), an ETF tracking the financial stocks in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, has rallied nearly 30% over the past three months and handily outpaced the market.

Market Matters

While the past few months have been anything but dull for the markets (euphoric may be more appropriate), investors enjoyed a few slow days of peace and quiet.

Another stimulus program came to a close as “Cash for Clunkers” ended with a last-minute flurry of activity.  Analysts claimed that more than 700,000 cars were bought over the past month and August auto sales should rise on a year-over-year basis for the first time since mid-2007.

While dealerships enjoyed a nice rebound in activity (even if just temporarily), banks continued to experience challenges as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC)reported that 416 institutions were on its “problem” list at the end of the second quarter, up from 305 on March 31, and also conceded that its insurance-fund reserves were dwindling.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) was in the news again as controversy has continued to surround the investment giant since the AIG bailout and LehmanBrothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ) failures.  Regulators are investigating its weekly “trading huddles,” where its analysts allegedly gave short-term stock tips to select clients and traders, though most other customers were not privy to such insight.

Dell Corp. (Nasdaq: DELL) posted lower quarterly profits, though
the result still beat Street expectations and management projected stronger performance in 2010 when businesses get back in technology buying mode.  Intel Corp. (Nasdaq: INTC) boosted its revenue projections for the next few months, another sign that chip demand is increasing and the business climate continues to improve.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average roared to eight straight days of higher closes, before hitting a stumbling block on Friday (though no one may have noticed as volume was so light) and the days of triple-digit moves ended (for a week at least).

The other indexes traded relatively flat during the week and even the positive news from Intel did little to generate any investor enthusiasm in the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index. Fixed income fared better than most would have expected, considering another $109 billion in government debt hit the street.

Oil surged to a 10-month high before a larger-than-expected inventory report indicated that crude demand remained weak despite expectations of an economic recovery just around the corner.  In fact, natural gas plunged to a seven-year low.

Economically Speaking

In perhaps the biggest news of the week, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will manage to avoid becoming a part of the so-called “jobless recovery” when he was nominated for another term as central bank chair by U.S. President Barack Obama.

While Bernanke certainly has his critics among grandstanding politicos from both sides of the aisle, few Fed watchers expect Congress to hold up his confirmation.  For now, continuity seems to be the best thing.

The economic data of the week was relatively favorable with signs of renewed strength in both housing and manufacturing.  New home sales jumped for the fourth consecutive month and the S&P Case-Shiller Index even depicted higher home prices last quarter for the first time since 2006.  Durable good orders surged in July on increased demand within the transportation sector as both General Motors Co. (OTC: MTLQQ) and Chrysler Group LLC put bankruptcy in their rearview mirrors and boosted production, while other companies also benefited from the “Cash for Clunkers” program.

When second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) was announced as a decline of 1%, many analysts expected a downward revision (perhaps significant) in the months that followed.  Well, the initial revision again showed a 1% decline, a negative showing, but one that many economists believe will be the last contraction in overall activity for a while.

The U.S. consumer remains one big wildcard for the strength of the economy moving forward.  Though the Conference Board reported a better-than-expected increase in its August consumer confidence report, the Reuters/U of Michigan sentiment index offered a contrasting view as it fell to its lowest level in four months.  Personal spending in July got a nice boost from the increase auto sales (“Cash for Clunkers” strikes again), though the income component of the release was unchanged and concerns about the labor picture continued to hinder consumer activity.

Weekly Economic Calendar

Source: Soaring Prices for AIG, Fannie and Other Financial Stocks Sending Mixed Messages to Investors ]]> http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/soaring-prices-for-aig-fannie-and-other-financial-stocks-sending-mixed-messages-to-investors/20240/feed 0 http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/china-curbs-bank-lending-but-vows-to-keep-liquidity-high/20178 http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/china-curbs-bank-lending-but-vows-to-keep-liquidity-high/20178#comments Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:21:50 +0000 Don Miller http://www.contrarianprofits.com/?p=20178 Beijing continued a delicate balancing act yesterday (Wednesday), vowing to keep stoking its economy with funding from its $787 billion stimulus program even as it implements new controls on bank lending.

After spending three days visiting the restive eastern province of Zhejiang, Premier Wen Jiabao argued for maintaining the loose economic policies implemented under the stimulus program, saying it’s too soon to be “blindly optimistic,” according to a statement by the State Council.

His remarks are likely to fuel an ongoing debate between government officials over whether it’s time to rein in bank lending.

After the government called on Chinese banks to provide increased liquidity to the economy, they lent about $1.08 trillion (7.37 trillion yuan) in the first half of the year…