Who’s back? Harry Dent, the self-styled “economic futurist,” who presumes to tell us about the great economic booms and busts that lie ahead.

How can he possibly know these things?

According to Dent, an analysis of the “highly predictable” nature of consumer spending based on demographic trends – increasing spending during child-rearing years, peak spending as the kids leave home and slower spending during late work and retirement – reveals what lies ahead for the economy and the stock market…

Harry Dent: Dow 44,000 & Other Flimsy Forecasts

Harry Dent is a man worth listening to. After all, he has a near perfect track record – as a contrary indicator…

For example:

• With less than auspicious timing, Dent brought out The Roaring 2000s Investor in 1999, confidently predicting that the Dow would hit 44,000 by 2008. With the luxury of hindsight, we now know he was off by 30,000 points or so.
• At the time, Dent also argued forcefully for NASDAQ stocks, predicting, “The technology revolution will favor Internet-oriented companies.” Within three years, the NASDAQ lost three quarters of its value and the leading index of Internet stocks plummeted 89%.

And Dent didn’t confine his market predictions to the U.S. He further forecast that Argentina would see “moderate growth until 2015 and then stronger growth into 2025.”

No, Argentina would suffer a currency collapse and financial crisis followed by rioting, social unrest and years of economic stagnation.

It’s obvious now just how wrong Dent was. But 10 years ago, plenty of brokers and investors agreed with him. He sold hundreds of thousands of books and raked in millions as an advisor to top Wall Street firms, including Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

Harry Dent’s Next Bold Prediction: The Great Depression Ahead

Five years later, bloodied but unbroken, and using his same demographic trends theory, Dent published The Next Great Bubble Boom: How to Profit from the Greatest Boom in History: 2006-2010.

Well, no. That period encapsulated the biggest bust since the Great Depression. As for his revised forecast of Dow 40,000 in 2009, it looks like he’s off by 30,000 or so points again.

With a track record like this, you might imagine Mr. Dent would shy away from economic prognostication.

Yet he’s promoting a new book. And if you’re looking for a reason to be optimistic about the market, you’ll find it in his chosen title: The Great Depression Ahead.

Within weeks of the book’s publication, the Dow began a 48% ascent, one of the six biggest rallies in the last 100 years.

Look, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to Mr. Dent. Anyone in the investment prophecy business needs the skin of a rhino and a Ph.D. in humility. No one gets it right all the time.

Moreover, Mr. Dent has made hundreds of predictions in his long career, so I’m sure he can point to a few successes. (Of course, so can an orangutan heaving darts at the stock pages.)

It’s just that Dent has made millions in book sales and investment advisory fees peddling this mumbo-jumbo.

(Poor advice does have its consequences, however. His AIM Dent Demographic Trends fund severely underperformed the market and was quickly folded into another fund. His name was quietly dropped.)

Yet Mr. Dent is still out there, offering dubious investment advice based on faulty premises.

The truth, of course, is this…

Forget Harry Dent… Listen to This Advice Instead

While anyone can make a good call from time to time, no one can consistently predict the economy or the stock market.

If you don’t accept this – a fundamental investment tenet with great investors from Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett, to Peter Lynch and John Templeton – your chances of long-term success are slim.

Yet Mr. Dent clings to his demographic theories and economic futurism. And that’s unfortunate.

Someone really ought to let him in on one of the great secrets of investing: Your only real mistakes are the ones you don’t learn from.

Good investing,

Alex

Source: Harry Dent: Bold Predictions of the Great Depression Ahead

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?

After slashing its forecast for the region in March, the ADB reversed course in its updated Asian Development Outlook (ADO) 2009. The bank said developing economies in Asia would grow by 3.9% this year, up from its previous forecast of 3.4%.

“Despite worsening conditions in the global economic environment, developing Asia is poised to lead the recovery from the worldwide slowdown,” said ADB Chief Economist Jong-Wha Lee.

However, the growth will not be evenly distributed. Economic growth in East Asia will be driven largely by China’s dynamic economy. But economic growth in Southeast Asia will be sluggish, because the recoveries of Vietnam and Indonesia will not be enough to offset weakness in Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia.

ADB boosted its outlook for annual economic growth in China to 8.2% from 7% earlier this year, and the bank believes China’s economic expansion will accelerate to 8.9% next year. That will help push economic growth in East Asia to an annual rate of 4.4%, compared to 0.1% growth in Southeast Asia.

ADB had underestimated China’s resilience in March when it predicted just 3.6% growth for East Asia.

“In the People’s Republic of China, aggressive monetary easing and the massive fiscal stimulus package rolled out by the government bolstered the region’s largest economy, which is now expected to grow by 8.2% in 2009 and 8.9% in 2010, up from the March forecast of 7% and 8% respectively,” said ADB.

Indeed, the potency of China’s $587 billion (4 trillion yuan) stimulus plan caught many analysts off guard.  Two of the world’s key global institutions – the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – and a large swath of investment banks were forced to raise their 2009 and 2010 growth estimates for China’s economy after the country announced second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 7.9%.

The OECD said it now expects China’s economy to grow by 7.7% this year and the World Bank boosted its projection to 7.2% growth.  GDP will expand by 9.3% in 2010, according to OECD estimates.

BNP Paribas SA (OTC: BNPQY), Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), UBS AG (NYSE: UBS), Morgan Stanley (MS), Standard Chartered Bank, and RBC Capital Markets all raised their forecasts for China’s economy as well.

China’s stimulus package gave the economy a big kick in the first half of the year, spurring bank lending and driving fixed asset investment. It even stimulated the oft-maligned Chinese consumer, boosting domestic demand while the market for exports remained dormant.

Chinese banks lent about $1.08 trillion (7.37 trillion yuan) in the first half of the year, nearly double the total loans extended throughout all of 2008.

Fixed-asset investment rose 33.5% in the first half year to $1.34 trillion (9.132 trillion yuan), according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Investment in infrastructure rose 57.4% year-over-year, with spending on railways up 126.5% and highway spending up 54.7%. Property sales were up 53% in the first six months from a year earlier.

Of course, fixed-asset investment has been consistently strong in China for the past decade. The real turnaround in the past six months has been that the frugal Chinese consumer has begun to spend more liberally.

China’s retail sales in the first half of the year rose 15% to $859.6 billion (5.87 trillion yuan).

Still, the ADB did warn Asian countries that their strong recovery is still uncertain and said they should continue to carry out stimulus measures until Western countries catch up.

“The improved regional outlook should not make developing Asian economies complacent,” said Lee. “A protracted global slowdown or the hasty withdrawal of stimulus packages can degrade the region’s ongoing recovery.”

Source: Asian Economies to ‘Lead the Recovery,’ Says ADB

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

Everyone also knows that some of the key culprits behind this financial mess were the credit-rating firms like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service, which assigned top-tier “AAA” ratings to investments that were actually backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic debt.

Whether it was collusion or incompetence almost didn’t matter: The firms claimed that the credit ratings they issued were constitutionally protected free speech. With this First Amendment shield, S&P, Moody’s and others said they were protected from lawsuits or other liabilities.

But that’s about to change.

A federal court judge in New York last week stripped the ratings firms of that defense, a decision that could expose the companies to billions of dollars worth of liabilities from investors who were burned by the faulty ratings.

Let’s legal case involved three specific firms – two firms that rated collateralized debt securities, and an investment bank that sold the debt. Those three companies were:

• Standard & Poor’s, which is owned by The McGraw-Hill Cos. Inc. (NYSE: MHP).
• The Moody’s Investor’s Service unit of Moody’s Corp. (NYSE: MCO), which is 19% owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A, BRK.B).
• And Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

This particular case had been brought against Moody’s and S&P by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC and Washington State’s King County. The case involved losses suffered from an investment in a structured investment vehicle (SIV) called Cheyne Finance. Although the debt securities Cheyne issued were backed in part by subprime mortgages, they received ratings as high as “AAA.”

In return for the high rating, the companies received higher-than-normal fees.

The $5.86 billion Cheyne Finance SIV went bankrupt in August 2007. The plaintiffs claimed fraud. The suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of investors who were burned when Cheyne was forced to dump securities it had issued between October 2004 and October 2007.

Since lawyers for the plaintiffs say the ruling could be applied to any deal involving SIVs, it could have a substantive impact. Before the financial crisis caused the value of these asset pools to plummet, experts estimate there were $350 billion to $400 billion worth of SIVs in existence.

“There certainly will be other cases filed – that’s the future impact of this decision,” San Diego attorney Patrick Daniels told The Wall Street Journal.

Moody’s and S&P had sought a dismissal, citing their First Amendment protections. But U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled on Sept. 2 that securities ratings that were distributed to a small group of investors don’t warrant the same First Amendment protections that are afforded to the widely circulated ratings of corporate bonds.

Judge Scheindlin acknowledged that ratings constituting “matters of public concern” are typically protected from liability. That’s especially true when the ratings are distributed to the general public. But it wasn’t the case here.

“Where a ratings agency has disseminated their ratings to a select group of investors rather than to the public at large, the ratings agency is not afforded the same protection,” Judge Scheindlin ruled.

The ruling will likely be appealed. And it could end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case spotlights the biggest problem with the business of rating securities: The ratings firms are paid by the issuers to rate them.

When you get right down to it, ratings firms are in business not to rate but to make money for themselves by rating issuers and their securities. The surprise isn’t that the obvious lack of objectivity fostered abuses in the credit-rating process – it’s that the problem took so long to come to a head. The complexity of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) only exacerbated the investor risk.

The decision received widespread media attention. But it’s only half the story.

And the media missed the other half.

In an ironic twist that transforms the credit-rating firms into legal sacrificial lambs, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has in recent weeks acknowledged its own failure to protect the public from the same ratings firms that the federal agency mandates that investors rely upon.

This admission – combined with the legal assault on the constitutional protections ratings firms are used to hiding behind – could threaten the ratings firms’ very existence. It not only will further fuel investor ire, it could also provide litigants with additional needed legal ammunition. The ratings involve tens of billions – if not hundreds of billions – of dollars of failed securities.

A series of internal reviews by the SEC – one reaching back to last year – has highlighted some of the abuses.

About a year ago – in July 2008, to be exact – the SEC concluded a 10-month examination of the ratings industry that uncovered “poor disclosure practices and procedures guiding the analysis of mortgage-related debt and insufficient attention paid to managing conflicts of interest.”

According to the report, there was an obvious degree of knowledge and complicity in playing the ratings game.

E-mail exchanges between analysts at “unnamed” ratings firms back this up. In one, an analyst said the firm’s ratings model didn’t capture “half” of the deal’s risk, but said that the security “could be structured by cows and we would rate it.” In a Dec. 15, 2006 missive, a manager wrote that the ratings industry was creating “[an] even bigger monster – the CDO market.”

Confided the manager: “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.”

In July of this year, in testimony to Congress, SEC Chairwoman Mary Shapiro said she supported proposals to impose liability standards that would make it easier for investors to sue credit ratings firms. That’s a bit ironic given that the SEC is charged with supervising the ratings firms.

According to the internal investigation conducted by the Office of Inspector General, the SEC failed to exercise its duties as the nation’s watchdog of the same credit ratings firms that many large investors are forced to trust.

By law, certain investors must rely on the ratings of a handful of companies, known as  “Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations,” or NRSROs. In many cases, the NRSROs determine what are “eligible” or “appropriate” investments. And it’s the SEC that determines who is, or who can be, an NRSRO.

For instance, most state insurance regulators say that insurance companies can only invest in assets that carry one of the top four credit ratings. And it’s the NRSROs that certify those ratings.

Similarly, money-market funds can only invest in the highest NRSRO-rated securities.

Countless institutions – public and private, domestic and international – rely on rules that determine what assets are acceptable investments. And that acceptability is determined by financial due diligence and the resulting credit ratings – as determined by SEC-certified rating agencies.

It’s not clear that any of this is really protecting investors, according to a Feb. 15, 2008 “Review & Outlook” piece in The Journal. Drexel University Finance Prof. Joseph Mason took a look at CDOs that were “Baa” (an investment grade rating) by Moody’s. His finding: They were 10 times more likely to default than equivalently rated corporate bonds.

In that same article, an S&P spokesperson was asked if they actually examined the mortgage debt that made up the investment pools that make up a CDO.

The spokesperson’s answer was not confidence-inspiring: “We are not auditors; we are not accounting firms.”

Source: The Credit Rating Firms Are Running Scared – It’s About Time

The 64-year-old Mack will remain as Morgan’s Chairman when Gorman, 51, takes over the CEO post on January 1, the company said.

Mack came under criticism as he scaled back Morgan’s risk profile even as rivals like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) regained momentum as the worst economic downturn since World War II began to wane, according to the Associated Press.

“Gorman has really earned his stripes,” Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital Advisors Corp., which owns Morgan Stanley shares, told Reuters. “He did a great job at Merrill, he’s doing a good job at Morgan Stanley, and the timing for a change seems to be good, because we’ve made it through the worst of the crisis.”

Before joining Morgan in 2006, Gorman had held a series of positions at Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., including leading its global private client business from 2001 to 2005.

Morgan received $25 billion in federal funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last year, and has since repaid the entire amount to the U.S. government.

Source: Morgan Stanley CEO Steps Down, Will Remain as Chairman

The 64-year-old Mack will remain as Morgan’s Chairman when Gorman, 51, takes over the CEO post on January 1, the company said.

Mack came under criticism as he scaled back Morgan’s risk profile even as rivals like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) regained momentum as the worst economic downturn since World War II began to wane, according to the Associated Press.

“Gorman has really earned his stripes,” Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital Advisors Corp., which owns Morgan Stanley shares, toldReuters. “He did a great job at Merrill, he’s doing a good job at Morgan Stanley, and the timing for a change seems to be good, because we’ve made it through the worst of the crisis.”

Before joining Morgan in 2006, Gorman had held a series of positions atMerrill Lynch & Co. Inc., including leading its global private client business from 2001 to 2005.

Morgan received $25 billion in federal funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last year, and has since repaid the entire amount to the U.S. government.

Source: Morgan Stanley CEO Steps Down, Will Remain As Chairman

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

The momentum behind China’s economy is staggering.

“China is increasingly becoming a responsible citizen in the global community,” economist Allen Sinai of Decision Economics told The Associated Press. “No longer lawless, no longer difficult to deal with, much more responsible. It is now a powerhouse among economies and finance. And it’s a rich country.”

In just the past few weeks, two of the world’s key global institutions – the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – and a large swath of investment banks raised their 2009 and 2010 growth estimates for China’s economy.

The OECD said it now expects China’s economy to grow by 7.7% this year and the World Bank boosted its projection to 7.2% growth.  GDP will expand by 9.3% in 2010, according to OECD estimates.

BNP Paribas SA (OTC: BNPQY), Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), UBS AG (NYSE:UBS), Morgan Stanley (MS), Standard Chartered Bank, and RBC Capital Markets all raised their forecasts for China’s economy as well.

So far, BNP Paribas SA is the most bullish on China’s prospective growth, as it boosted its prediction to 8.2% this year. That would top Beijing’s 8% target.  Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan all raised their 2009 forecasts to 7.8% growth.

“The strong acceleration in underlying economic activity is now unmistakable,” Goldman Sachs economist Yu Song told TIME magazine.

China’s Homegrown Growth

China’s $585 billion (4 trillion yuan) stimulus package gave the economy a big kick in the first half of the year, spurring bank lending and driving fixed asset investment. It even stimulated the oft-maligned Chinese consumer, boosting domestic demand while the market for exports remained dormant.

Chinese banks lent about $1.08 trillion (7.37 trillion yuan) in the first half of the year, nearly double the total loans extended throughout all of 2008.  And even though the economy is clearly on the road to recovery, it’s not likely lending will let up for the rest of the year.

BNP Paribas chief economist Chen Xingdong told Bloomberg thathe expects new loans will reach 9.5 trillion yuan by the end of 2009.

“The growth recovery has been even stronger than our anticipation,” Chen said.  “Strong fixed-asset investment growth and retail sales have started to generate real demand for industrial production.”

Fixed-asset investment rose 33.5% in the first half year to $1.34 trillion (9.132 trillion yuan), according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Investment in infrastructure rose 57.4% year-over-year, with spending on railways up 126.5% and highway spending up 54.7%. Property sales were up 53% in the first six months from a year earlier.

Of course, fixed-asset investment has been consistently strong in China for the past decade. The real turnaround in the past six months has been that the frugal Chinese consumer has begun to spend more liberally.

China’s retail sales in the first half of the year rose 15% to $859.6 billion (5.87 trillion yuan).  Retail sales in June also rose 15% from May, said NBS spokesman Li Xiaochao.

“There were two highlights in promoting domestic demand: commercial apartments sales rose by 31.7% in the first half year from the same period last year; automobile sales expanded by 17.7% year on year,” Li said.

Auto sales reached 6.1 million vehicles in the first six months, helping China to supplant the United States as the world’s largest automarket. Sales could easily surpass 12 million this year.

“The rebound has been driven by the domestic economy,” Jing Ulrich JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Chinese equities strategist told Fortunemagazine. “The consumer proved resilient – and the government acted as a catalyst.”

“China can still achieve 8% growth,” she said. “Everything is happening very fast there.”

The One Potential Hurdle for China’s Economy

There’s no question that China’s stimulus package has been an unequivocal success. In fact, the only problem may be that it is working a bit too well.

In the United States concern about inflation prompted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to outline an “exit strategy” for the withdrawal of liquidity from the financial system. Similarly, China’s biggest challenge going forward will be clamping down on lending to keep potentially hazardous bubbles from growing in its economy.

Inflation is a particular concern, as rising commodity prices have crept into imports.

“Commodity markets around the world have bottomed and are rebounding, raising imported inflation pressures,” the People’s Bank of China (BOC) said in a report analyzing second-quarter economic trends, issued by its Financial Survey and Statistics Department. “At the same time, domestic demand continues to rebound, liquidity remains flush and inflation expectations are surfacing.”

However, as in the United States, policymakers in Beijing have said they will remain committed to “proactive fiscal policy” until it is certain a recovery is underway. In fact, some analysts don’t expect to see a significant change in policy until November, when leaders and regulators meet for their annual conference on the economy.

“We must see that the economic recovery is not on a solid foundation, and the negative impacts from the international crisis have not eased,” said Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. “An improvement in the economy does not mean the difficult period is over.”

Indeed, stimulus must be maintained until China’s all-important export sector has recovered. And while Chinese exports climbed 7.5% from May to June, they were still down 21.4% from a year ago.

Of course that doesn’t mean Beijing will just sit back and wait for lending to reach excessive levels.

“China has achieved impressive results in reviving economic activities,” Gao Shanwen, chief economist with Essence Securities, told Reuters. “The basic tone of the appropriately loose monetary policy is unlikely to change, but there will be fine-tuning.”

The BOC has traditionally used a quota system to control lending, telling banks not to exceed specific ceilings. It may continue to do so if the central bank does not see a sufficient drop in lending. It may also choose to provide banks with a less stringent lending guidance, or range, rather than an outright ceiling.

“The banks are highly responsive to government policy,” Ha Jiming, of China International Capital Corp. Ltd. (CICC), the nation’s largest investment bank, told The Financial Times.

Punitive bill issuances are another tool in the central bank’s toolkit. In September, the BOC will require banks to buy $15 billion (100 billion yuan) in special bills. The bills will be issued at punitively low interest rates and reduce the amount of money banks have on hand to lend out.

Regardless of what methods it chooses, the BOC is clearly ready to act. But it won’t jeopardize a recovery in a preemptive assault on inflation.

The central bank “will unswervingly continue to apply appropriately loose monetary policy and consolidate the economic recovery momentum,” said Su Ning, vice governor of the People’s Bank of China.

Source: With Its Economy Ignited by Stimulus Spending, China Is Leading the Global Recovery

With options running out over the weekend, CIT advisors began preparations for a bankruptcy filing. As of Sunday, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS) were talking with other banks about a debtor-in-possession loan, used to fund a company’s operations after it seeks court protection from creditors, Bloomberg News reported.

Bondholders held calls last week to discuss whether to swap some claims for equity to reduce indebtedness. Thomas Lauria, a lawyer at White & Case LLP, told Bloomberg that a group of CIT creditors he represents offered to provide $3 billion in new loans to bridge CIT to an out-of-court restructuring or an orderly bankruptcy, but had yet to hear back from CIT management.

“It seems CIT was ill-prepared for this moment, so they’re scrambling,” Scott Peltz, a managing director at consulting firm RSM McGladrey Inc. told Bloomberg. “Unless you have all these bondholders holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I think they’re too far behind the eight ball to avoid filing.”

While CIT is not nearly the household name of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C)or Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), the lender finances over 1 million businesses – including Dunkin Donuts and Eddie Bauer.

Three prominent retail trade groups sent letters to financial regulators this week warning that the failure of CIT would undermine the industry supply chain.
“[Retailers] are unbelievably concerned right now,” New York bankruptcy lawyer Jerry Reisman told the Buffalo News. “What we may have here is a total disruption in small business.”

Reisman said he received more than two dozen calls from panicked stores and apparel manufacturers, some of which said they may not have the money to pay their employees.

An otherwise light week on the economic calendar gives way to the next round of earnings as Apple Inc (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE: TXN) highlight the corporate releases this week, while consumer companies The Coca Cola Co. (NYSE: KO),McDonalds Corp. (NYSE: MCD), and Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq:AMZN) join the mix.

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will head to Congress where several critics await.  As for the healthcare debate, the August deadline seems less likely, though the Senate has its two cents to add in the coming days.  Expect plenty of politicized talk about the ballooning deficit and the impact on small businesses.

Market Matters

The financial sector appears to be on the mend as earnings season brought several positive signs that the worst is over and soon “business as usual” will return to Wall Street.  Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) easily surpassed analysts’ earnings estimates on solid trading revenues, while JP Morgan got a boost from its investment banking division to shatter the forecasts.

Even Citigroup and Bank of America posted solid results (thanks to one-time gains), though both entities have many ongoing challenges to overcome before the Feds let them fend for themselves.

Of course, the possibility that CIT will file for bankruptcy protection has left panicked customers without a significant source of funding for their daily operations.  After late hour negotiations failed, the government chose to pass on another sizable bailout and allow true capitalism to play itself out.  CIT turned to private firm and bondholders to help devise a financing plan and avoid the fate of Lehman Bros. and others.  But now, nervous retailers and manufacturers are lining up alternative funding sources with the hope of dodging significant business interruptions.

Bed Bath & Beyond (Nasdaq: BBBY) and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) are among CIT’s largest customers, though many are small independent operations.  A CIT failure could prove devastating for those firms considered the lifeblood of American business.

In other earnings news, techs enjoyed another decent quarter as Intel Corp. (INTC) easily bested expectations (that is, before that $1.45 billion antitrust fine) and International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM) earnings grew by double-digits, while management raised its outlook for the next few quarters.  Though both offered encouraging signs for the sector (and economy as a whole), Dell Inc. (Nasdaq:DELL) warned that lower margins are impacting its operations andGoogle Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG) experienced its lowest rate of revenue growth since going public five years ago.

The travel industry continued to struggle as consumers and business professionals delayed trips and Marriott International Inc. (NYSE:MAR) and American Airlines parent AMR (NYSE: AMR) posted disappointing results.

Market/ Index	Year Close (2008)	Qtr Close (06/30/09)	Previous Week (07/10/09)	Current Week (07/17/09)	YTD Change
Dow Jones Industrial	8,776.39	8,447.00	8,146.52	8,743.94	-0.37%
NASDAQ	1,577.03	1,835.04	1,756.03	1,886.61	+19.63%
S&P 500	903.25	919.32	879.13	940.38	+4.11%
Russell 2000	499.45	508.28	480.98	519.22	+3.96%
Global Dow	1526.21	1,629.31	1,561.11	1,664.23	+9.04%
Fed Funds	0.25%	0.25%	0.25%	0.25%	0 bps
10 yr Treasury (Yield)	2.24%	3.52%	3.30%	3.65%	+141 bps

Economically Speaking

The White House also experienced a “good news/bad news” week as House Democrats began to push forward a major healthcare overhaul.  Before the real lobbying could begin in earnest, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director proclaimed the proposal would have no positive results on reducing costs or expanding coverage and would actually increase government spending.

Investors shrugged off the CIT developments and focused on positive earnings and economic data.  Stocks surged early on the Goldman news and soared right through the technology reports.  Technicians joined the fun as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index broke beyond resistance at 930, a strong sign for traders who monitor charts.  Major indexes snapped a month-long losing streak and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite climbed to levels not seen since last October, while fixed income suffered reverse “flight-to-quality” trades.  Oil rebounded on the favorable market and economic signs.

While the debate over a healthcare overhaul rages on, the Treasury Department reported that the budget deficit ballooned beyond a record $1 trillion and seemed prime to move even higher if Congress cannot reign in spending.   Analysts fear that interest rates ultimately will move higher should the alarming trend continue and foreign investors shy away from U.S. securities.

But for now, inflation seems very much under control, despite sizable jumps in both the retail and wholesale gauges.  Though gasoline prices surged by 17% in June, prices have already begun dropping at the pumps and most economists do not expect a repeat performance in the months to come.

Though retail sales increased in June for the second consecutive month, much of the gain was related to the rising gas prices and consumers remain reluctant to part with their hard-earned income in light of the weakening labor picture.

On a positive note, weekly jobless claims fell to its lowest level since January. However, naysayers claimed that much of the decline was due to calculation problems stemming from auto closures and layoffs are still very much on the rise.

Finally, the hectic economic calendar ended on a positive note as the housing sector showed renewed signs of a rebound as both new construction and permits for future activity experienced unexpected strength.  Even Dr. Doom himself, NYU professor Nouriel Roubini, the man best known for predicting the current crisis, reversed course and claimed the global economy would move out of recession by late 2009.

The minutes from the June Fed meeting showed that policymakers revised (positively) their forecasts for economic activity in 2009 and 2010, though they expect the unemployment situation to remain weak through next year.  Most Fed watchers do not see any change in the funds rate for the foreseeable future.

On another note, numerous renown economists (about 200), including a few Nobel prize winners, called on Congress to cease the grandstanding and stop criticizing the Fed’s handling of the financial crisis and economic downturn (particularly Bernanke’s “tactics” surrounding the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch deal).  The strongly worded letter by some of the nation’s sharpest minds stated that such politicizing could prove detrimental to the recovery.

Weekly Economic Calendar

Source: Market Recoils as CIT Edges Toward Bankruptcy