The identity of the bank that is alleged to have failed the bank stress test was not revealed.

The bank-stress-test findings were reported yesterday (Sunday) by CNBC.com, which said it obtained the information from a source that it did not identify. The source did not identify the company, CNBC.com reported.

“At least one firm – under the [bank] stress test assumptions – will require more capital,” the source said.

The bank-stress-test results were contained in a two-dozen-page report that the government released Friday. But the results had already been “conveyed” to the firms, meaning the bank in question is aware of the U.S. central bank’s assessment, according to the published report.

This round of bank stress tests was essentially a two-step process. The first step – outlining how the banks have been analyzed – was taken care of with the report released over the weekend.  The second step – releasing the results to the public – will be taken care of when the actual results are released May 4, which is one week from today (Monday).

Neither the U.S. Federal Reserve nor the U.S. Treasury Department would comment.

The bank stress tests have a very specific purpose. Financial institutions that are found to have inadequate capital will have six months to raise the money via the private sector. If that doesn’t work, the government has said the financial institutions will be eligible for an infusion of capital via the federal government’s so-called “Capital Access Program.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said he would be open to banks repaying their Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) loans, as long as the availability of credit (borrowing) was not adversely affected.  As a Money Morning special report detailed last week, the credit markets don’t seem to be loosening up: Lending dropped by more than 20% from October 2008 to February 2009, despite initiatives to encourage such activity.

According to the conclusion of the report released over the weekend, “most banks currently have capital levels well in excess of the amounts needed to be well capitalized.”

However, as Money Morning has reported, the tests have become a “no-win” situation for the Obama administration.

“There are two things that are terribly wrong,” William M. Isaac, the Secura Group chairman who served as head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) from 1981 to 1985, told CNBC.com. The first problem – and a big one – is the fact that the details were announced at all.

“I can’t imagine what Treasury was thinking when it made that move. It has been causing incredible angst in the markets,” said Isaac. “The second big problem is that the Treasury is directing the stress testing, apparently with direct involvement of the White House at the highest levels. Bank regulation by law is supposed to be carried out by the independent banking agencies without any political interference.”

Market Matters

As Money Morning reported Friday – in a Wall Street version of the old “he said/(s)he said” drama, Bank of America Corp. (BAC) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis claimed that ex-U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. and central bank Chairman Ben S. Bernanke threatened to remove him from office if he backed out of the Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (SQD) merger or (publicly) discussed the mounting losses.

Paulson had previously testified that Lewis must have misinterpreted their comments, but then seemed to blame Bernanke for the threat (Translation: Paulson tried to throw Bernanke “under the bus.”).

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo has been investigating the activities surrounding the merger to determine why shareholders were kept in the dark about the financial “challenges.”

Shifting to autos, Italy’s Fiat SpA (OTC ADR FIATY) emerged as a potential major global player as it attempts to forge a partnership with (soon-to-be-bankrupt?) Chrysler LLC, and also has interest in buying General Motors Corp.’s (GM) Opel unit. Meanwhile, GM will be closing 13 production plants over the summer to trim inventory and seems likely to miss a $1 billion debt payment due June 1 as it too moves closer to bankruptcy protection.

How bad is GM’s plight: GM may close its Pontiac division after 82 years of operation, The Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch.com reported over the weekend.

While the earnings news of the week found plenty of winners and losers, ultimately analysts perceived a bit of “cautious optimism.”  Bank of America and Morgan Stanley (MS) failed to live up to the favorable showings by Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and other financials, though techs like Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN), Apple Inc. (AAPL) and International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), beat Wall Street expectations, and brought new hope that the downturn was nearing an end. (Watch for an updated “Hot Stocks” feature on IBM here in Money Morning later this week).

Unfortunately, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) posted the first quarterly revenue decline in its 23-year history, though investors still cheered its ability to reduce costs during these challenging times for PC sales. McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), AT&T Inc. (T), and Ford Motor Co. (F) were among the diverse group of companies reporting better-than-expected results, while United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), and Continental Airlines Inc. (CAL) issued disappointing numbers.

Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), the subject of a recent “Buy, Sell or Hold” feature here in Money Morning, bucked the negative trend facing many retailers and posted higher quarterly earnings and revenue.

Additionally, U.S. retailers J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (JCP) and Coach Inc. (COH) each expressed positive sentiment that sales activity seems to picking up.  Oracle Corp. (ORCL) snapped up Sun Microsystems Inc. (JAVA) for $7.4 billion after IBM chose to pass, and PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) is attempting to purchase two related bottling companies as corporate execs seek favorable deals in this environment.  Such merger-and-acquisition (M&A) transactions often signal boardroom confidence and also indicate that the “worst” part of a downturn may be over.

Oil prices surged above the $51-a-barrel level late in the week as traders overlooked the higher inventory levels and instead focused on some favorable signs that the economy may be closing in on turnaround mode.

With a six-week winning streak on the line, investors offered their best “clutch hitting” late Friday, pushing all major indexes to higher levels. Early in the week, after investors digested negative news from the likes of Bank of America and GM, prognosticators said the weekly stock-market winning streak was all but over. However, some better-than-expected earnings and economic reports brought out the “bulls” for one final run.  The Nasdaq Composite Index ended the week in positive territory, and the other equity indexes were virtually flat from last week’s closing levels (with the Dow Jones Industrial Average suffering a slight decline).

Economically Speaking

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the global downturn will be far worse than previously expected.  For 2009, the IMF expects the world economy to contract by 1.3%, its first such decline in 60-years, with over 10 million employees losing their jobs.  Unfortunately, its projections for the United States are even more dire (-2.8% for the year), with domestic financial institutions suffering $2.7 trillion in losses, almost twice the IMF’s prior estimates from just six months ago.

While much of the economic data of the week confirmed the IMF’s weak projection, analysts found a few positive signs that the downturn very well may have bottomed out.  While both new home sales and durable goods orders declined in March, the results beat the weaker Street expectations and came in the aftermath of some (relatively) strong February numbers.

In another promising sign of stability within the housing sector, the median price of an existing home sold in March actually rose for the second straight month.  Still, the record unemployment filings last week revealed the ongoing difficulties facing job seekers amid these tight labor conditions.  Likewise, leading economic indicators, a predictive report, dropped for the third consecutive month and many economists expect the recession to last at least until late third quarter.

Weekly Economic Calendar

Source: Controversial Stress Tests Reveal Only One Bank Needs Capital, but Worries Remain

This from Penny Sleuth:

What do frozen desserts, designer handbags, and underwear have in common? Two of the best investment opportunities this decade. Allow me to explain…

A single company – one you’re probably familiar with – sold all three seemingly unrelated products. A few years ago, Sara Lee Corp (NYSE:SLE) – maker of frozen (yet tasty) pies and cakes – owned hundreds of brands, many of which made no sense.

For instance, the frozen cheesecake manufacturer was the sole owner of Coach handbags and Hanes underwear. These two subsidiaries obviously didn’t make much sense to the company. That’s why – during two separate transactions – Sara Lee’s management and board of directors divested them through a process known as a spinoff.

Spinoffs are common in the business world. They can present smart investors with huge opportunities and sometimes, less fortunate investors with even larger losses. Spinoffs are usually as simple as they sound – a parent company decides it can do without one of its business. So, the subsidiary is spun off onto its own.

There are four basic reasons for a parent to spinoff one of its “children”:

• Unrelated Businesses – many times, companies like Sara Lee own certain subsidiaries – like Coach and Hanes – they have no business owning. This happens often in conglomerates when a certain product takes off and is held back by the organization of the parent company.

• Tax Benefits – taxes can be burdensome and confusing. But every once in a while, the mathematicians and financial wizards find a loophole to save on taxes and preserve shareholder value. Occasionally, it takes a spinoff to do it.

• Refocusing – oftentimes, a large company will take a look at its operations and find one of its businesses lagging behind, which inevitably puts a strain on management to fix the problem. The best solution is to spinoff this business so management of the parent company can get back to growing profitable businesses. This often benefits both the parent and “child” company.

• Pinching Off Debt – some spinoffs are created to unload debt and other burdensome liabilities. This is where many unfortunate investors take enormous losses. As you can imagine, a company created out of a need to unload debt is doomed from the start.

It’s important to decipher between the four reasons because if you find the right one, you stand to make colossal gains. Let’s look back at our top example…

As we noted, Sara Lee’s situation fits the first mold – unrelated businesses. Spinning off a perfectly capable business creates earning potential neither the parent nor the “child” even realized.

Sara Lee first spun off Coach in 2000. Almost immediately, the newly formed Coach Inc (NYSE:COH) began its own marketing program. This turned into an enormous success and unrealized profit potential came to light, which shot shares straight up over the next six years. As you can see in the chart below, Coach outperformed its former parent by more than 2,000% to negative 15%.

The same thing happen in round two, when Sara Lee spun off Hanesbrand Inc (NYSE:HBI) in 2006. Although the gains were not as fantastic, Hanes shareholders watch their shares double as Sara Lee shares stayed flat:

Of course, not all spinoffs work this way. It takes serious studying and an ear to the ground to find out exactly what’s going on.

Many times, when parents spinoff businesses, they keep it quiet. If the media gets a hold of it, shares can crash artificially, or spike prematurely. And, as we mentioned, many spinoffs negatively affect shareholders.

One recent example is InterActiveCorp’s (Nasdaq:IACI) spinoff of Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc (Nasdaq:TKTM) . When Ticketmaster was sent on its way, InterActiveCorp left it with a parting gift of about $750 million in debt, just as the credit crisis began to peak this summer. Shares of Ticketmaster, inevitably collapsed under this weight, falling more than 80 %:

Of course, you have to use your best judgment when you discover a spinoff. You’ll have to make the decision on why you think the parent company spun it off.

More than not, however, buying spinoffs when they’re fresh is a pretty good idea. According to Chris Mayer of Mayer’s Special Situations – a newsletter focused on spinoffs and other unique investments – “spinoffs beat their industry peers and outperformed the S&P 500 Index by about 10% per year in their first three years of existence.”

Those numbers account for both spin offs that lead to gains and those that lead to losses. Obviously, this is something to look into.

If you are lucky enough, and have the right inside knowledge, you can easily take advantage of the next Coach spinoff and leave the next Ticketmaster alone.

Source: Spinoff Stocks: Quick, Proven Way to Grab Easy Gains

Luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co. (NYSE:TIF) yesterday followed in the footsteps of other high-end brands when it announced strong fiscal second quarter results.

Tiffany’s net income increased to $80.8 million, or 63 cents per share, in the second quarter, up from $40.5 million, or 29 cents, for the same period a year prior. It was enough to beat mean analyst expectations of 55 cents per share and sent Tiffany shares up 10%.

“Tiffany did a lot better than investors feared,” Schick, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. (NYSE:SF), told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview. “Luxury isn’t getting a ton better, but it is hanging in there. People are going to remain concerned about what happens next, given the state of the global economy and the global equity markets.”

And there’s the rub. Luxury brands such as Tiffany, Hermes International SA (PINK: HESAF) and the Gucci Group NV (PINK: GUCG) have managed to grow sales despite a sharp slowdown in U.S. consumer spending. But growing economic troubles in Europe, traditionally the biggest market for luxury goods, are starting to weigh on the minds of high-end retailers.

And while luxury sales growth in emerging markets is on the rise, it may not be enough to offset the slowdown in the maturing markets of the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Some high-end retailers are struggling to come up with new ways of nabbing customers, while others are carefully implementing focused marketing campaigns that build on their core competencies.

Shares of luxury goods makers are no longer a sure thing, but there are still some profitable picks if you know what to look for, and just as importantly, what to avoid.

Selling Luxury

Many high-end retailers were convinced that sales of luxury goods would continue unabated despite slowing global economies. And at first, it seemed they were right. But as the fallout from the global credit crisis unfolds, the luxury market is starting to feel the pinch that its mid-level brethren are already familiar with.

The luxury industry has clocked in five straight years of strong growth that culminated with a 6.5% jump in 2007. At one time, luxury sales were expected to advance at an 8% – 10% clip over the next several years. But growth like that is no longer feasible in today’s tough markets.

Bain & Co. Inc. has ratcheted its forecast down to a 2% rate of growth for the $270 billion luxury market this year.

“I’ve done this for a long time, and this is one of the most volatile times I’ve ever experienced,” Angela Ahrendts, chief executive officer of British brand Burberry Ltd. (PINK: BBRYF), told Fortune.

“The good news is that the sector is still outperforming others over the next two years,” Ahrendts says. “It’s just a matter of getting through the storm by focusing on the right markets, the right suppliers, and the right categories. We’ve got to run a tighter, smarter business.”

Indeed, the future is bright for the luxury sector, particularly as demand picks up in emerging markets where rapid development has resulted in the materialization of a new client base.

Sales of luxury goods in Asia, excluding Japan, jumped 100% over the past ten years, increasing from $14.7 billion (10 billion euro) in 1997 to $29.4 billion (20 billion euro) in 2007.  But despite the rapid growth, that region only accounted for 12% of global luxury goods sales in 2007 – only slightly more than 11% in 1997.

For now, even with the impressive growth rates, emerging markets aren’t ready to pick up the slack for the wealthier West.

Stick With What Works

Luxury retailers are doing everything they can to boost flagging sales, but some just can’t get over the hurdle. A June survey by the Italian trade group Altagamma found that operating margins at many brands were flat or falling, Fortune reported. Slowing sales and shrinking margins have led some firms to try to reach out beyond their core customer base.

For many, it’s a costly error.

“The biggest mistake luxury brands make is in not sticking with their core value system and core customer,” Suzanne Hader, principal at 400twin, a New York-based consulting company that focuses on luxury goods, told Forbes.

American handbag maker, Coach Inc. (NYSE:COH) has carved out success for itself by selling $300 handbags. But a recent attempt to go higher-end with its Legacy line, with handbags that retail for $1,100 was not only unpopular, it alienated the company’s core customers.

]]> http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/diamonds-in-the-rough-two-luxury-brands-ready-to-shine/5038/feed 0