To refresh your memory, a straddle is when you essentially bet on both sides of a trade by using options that have the same strike price and same expiration date.

For example, if you like Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), currently trading around $12, you could buy a $12 call option and a $12 put option. In doing so, the goal is that once the stock moves in a particular direction, one option will move high enough that it offsets the loss from the other one – and more.

With a strangle option, the basic goal is exactly the same, but the trading strategy is slightly different. Here’s how it works…

Reasons to Use A Strangle Option vs. Straddles

The main reason to use a strangle option over a straddle is to lower your cost on the trade.

Like straddles, strangle options also involve buying a put and a call option. But the difference is that instead of buying a call and a put with the same strike prices at or near the current share price (at-the-money option), strangles involves buying a call and put with different, out-of-the-money strike prices.

Let’s take our Bank of America example and assign some prices to various strikes.

STRADDLE PLAY (In or At-The-Money Options)

• BAC January 2011 $12.50 calls                 $3.75
• BAC January 2011 $12.50 puts                 $4.00

• Total Cost                                                     $7.75

STRANGLE PLAY (Out-Of-The-Money Options)

• BAC January 2011 $10 puts                             $2.65
• BAC January 2011 $15 calls                             $3.00

• Total Cost                                                     $5.65

As you can see, the strangle option play costs more than $2 less. And like the straddle, your goal is for the stock to move very strongly in one direction – either up or down.

So let’s say BAC rises to $25 by January 2011. In this case, you’d make $10 in gross profit ($25 minus $15 strike). Subtract your total cost of $5.65 and your net profit would be at least $3.35 – or more than 60%.

On the downside, you’d need BAC to fall far enough to cover the loss of the premium from your call option ($3) and your investment in the call option. Since there is more room on the upside in this case, the bias of this strangle is bullish.

Strangle Options: The Best Times To Use Them

So what are the best times to use a strangle options play – and the best stocks on which to use it?

Because the underlying stock has to work a lot harder to make you money in strangle, you need to use the strategy wisely. Simply put, that means it’s best to employ it on stocks that have lots of volatility, both up and down.

In the current market, strangle options work well on financial shares like Bank of America, as well as:

• SunTrust Banks (NYSE: STI),
• JP Morgan (NYSE: JPM),
• And Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

Strangle option plays would also work well on technology sector shares like:

• Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL),
• And Research in Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM).

But don’t try using strangle options on stodgy healthcare stocks like Merck (NYSE: MRK) or on traditionally stable utility companies like Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED).

You can also execute straddle options and strangle option plays on the broader stock market through index options on the Dow, Nasdaq 100, or S&P 500.

So next time you’re looking at a situation where it’s hard to predict the market/stock’s direction – but you’re confident that there will be a big move eventually – don’t feel like you can’t do anything, strangle the trade and walk away a winner.

Karim Rahemtulla

Source: The Strangle Options Play: When & How To Use This Trading Strategy

Stress Test A Concoction By Banking Industry

In a nutshell, the banks’ stress test was really nothing more than a fantastic concoction put forward by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the banking industry.

Unemployment assumptions too high in the test? No problem… just amend them to a more favorable number.

GDP growth too low? Ah, no worries… just change it.

Hardly a surprise then that the results are unbelievable. According to the New York Times, these were the assumptions in the test:

• The U.S. economy contracts by 3.3% this year and remains almost flat in 2010.
• Housing prices fall another 22% this year.
• The worst-case scenario for unemployment has the jobless rate at 8.9% this year, rising to 10.4% in 2010.

Here are the problems with assumptions like that…

• GDP Growth: In short, we’ll see anemic expansion at best, with little evidence of the contraction ending this year. Of course, we can hope that growth will return if the government continues to spend like a drunken sailor.
• Unemployment: The April job numbers released last Friday (if you even believe them) showed that the unemployment rate is already at 8.9%. So if that’s the “worst case,” we’re now on the mend, with the rate set to decline from here, right?

I think not. We’ll see the jobless rate in the double-digits this year, not next.

• Housing Decline: This is the only part of the guidelines that makes sense. The market is finally showing signs of bottoming at levels well below expectations – something I warned readers about in late 2006.

As An Investor, Don’t Flunk This “Stress Test”

Notice how the “secret,” yet somehow highly public results were leaked at the end of last week? It worked like a charm. Investors latched onto the result, breathed a sigh of relief that financial Armageddon had been staved off, and gleefully bid up stocks. Financial shares, in particular, rallied on the news.

Funny thing is… as soon as stocks rallied – some by multiples of 100% – the same banks that claimed to be solid suddenly began to raise capital. So far, the amounts raised (and yet to be raised) are nearing the $100 billion mark.

The critics are out in force. Yesterday, Meredith Whitney (the Mark Meeker of financial shares) was adamant that she wouldn’t buy shares here. Moreover, she stated that the stress test was a joke, with banks still under-capitalized and diminished earnings power as a result of the recession and asset sales to raise cash.

So, what’s an investor to do? Are there any opportunities out there at all?

The Best Way To Buy These Three Bank Stocks

Without a doubt, there are opportunities in the banking sector.

But that opportunity is not to buy the shares today. There’s a savvier, smarter way to do it, based on the fact that bank stocks will pull back. And it’s on that pullback that you should look to buy. How?

In my opinion, the best strategy to use when buying bank stocks should be to do it through two-year LEAP options.

Why? Because these bank stocks aren’t paying you dividends these days, why risk all your capital when you can achieve better returns at a lower cost by going long with LEAPS.

However, the options are exorbitant at the moment because volatility is so high. But that doesn’t mean you’re stuck. You just need to use a high delta strategy.

Simply put, this means you should buy deep-in-the-money LEAPS in order to reduce the outlay for time and risk premium. And you should only go for the ones with the highest volatility.

In this case, set your sights on…

• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) – when it gets back to the single digits.
• JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) – when the stock trades in the low-to-mid $20s.
• Suntrust Banks Inc. (NYSE: STI) – when shares retreat to the low teens.

However, these banks’ current prices reflect outrageous valuations, based on earnings power and economic uncertainty.

So while the black cloud may have been temporarily lifted from the banking sector, it doesn’t mean that these companies are a sure bet for profits – not at current prices anyway.

Karim Rahemtulla

Source: Bank Stocks: Disregard The Stress Test & Consider These 3 Stocks

Banks that require funding will have 30 days to present a capital-raising strategy to regulators and then six months to implement it.

It is unlikely that any of the banks will require any additional taxpayer money.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET), American Express Co. (NYSE: AXP), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE: BK), BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT), Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB), and State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT) are in the clear in terms of having adequate capital cushioning.

The following banks will be required to raise these assigned amounts of capital:

• Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC): $34 billion.
• Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC): $13.7 billion.
• GMAC LLC (NYSE: GMA): $11.5 billion.
• Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C): $5.5 billion.
• Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS): $1.8 billion.
• Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ: FITB): $1.1 billion.
• KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY): $1.8 billion.
• PNC Financial Services (NYSE: PNC): $600 million.
• Regions Financial Corp. (NYSE: RF): $2.5 billion.
• SunTrust Banks Inc.( NYSE: STI): $2.2 billion.

The banks will have until June 8 to develop a plan to raise the required capital and until Nov. 9 to implement it. They may choose to raise the money in a variety of ways. They may sell assets, court private investment or convert the government’s existing preferred shares into common stock.

Citigroup has already announced plans to convert a portion of the government’s $45 billion stake into common stock, a move that will give the federal government a 36% stake in the company. Other regional banks – such as Fifth Third Bank or Regions Financial – could be forced to take similar actions, but are loath to do so, as most of the moves would be dilutive to existing shareholders.

Citigroup has agreed to sell Nikko Cordial Securities to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (OTC: SMFJY) for about $5.5 billion. The deal, which is to be completed by Oct. 1, is expected to boost the bank’s Tier-1 capital ratio by approximately 27 basis points.

Morgan Stanley plans to close its capital gap by selling assets or stock to private investors, a person briefed on the plan told The New York Times. And Wells Fargo said late yesterday that it plans to sell $6 billion in new common stock in an effort to raise required capital.

While Bank of America has said it doesn’t agree with the Fed’s conclusions, the bank yesterday outlined its strategy to accommodate the government’s demands. BofA is exploring the sale of such business units as its First Republic private-banking unit and asset manager Columbia Management, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The sale of those businesses could raise a combined $4 billion, David Hendler of CreditSights Inc. told The Journal. BofA could also get about $8 billion for its partial stake in China Construction Bank Corp.

Beyond that BofA would have the options of converting the government’s existing $45 billion investment, or $33 billion in private preferred shares, into common stock.

The Fed wants bank-holding companies to achieve a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of at least 6%, and a Tier 1 Common risk-based ratio of at least 4% by the end of 2010. The goal is to get banks to the point where they are stable enough that they can borrow from private investors without a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) guarantee, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg News.

“Going forward, we just need banks to be able to issue debt without the FDIC backing – that’s the next stage for these bank names in terms of evaluating their health,” Mark Bronzo, a money manager at Security Global Investors LLC, which oversees $21 billion in Irvington, N.Y., told Bloomberg.

If the banks fail to meet capital requirements, the government will step in to provide the necessary funds. However, it’s unlikely that any more taxpayer money will be needed, as about $110 billion of the original $700 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding remains.

Wall Street’s Reaction

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 102.43 points, or 1.2%, yesterday, with the Dow Jones U.S. Financial Services Index down 3.78%. However, Wall Street’s reaction to the tests won’t be fully realized until the market opens later today (Friday).

“I think this will be a confidence-instilling announcement,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate panel Wednesday. “There will be additional needs for capital buffers for some institutions, but I think there will be mechanisms to do that within the next six months.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in an interview with PBS television’s “The Charlie Rose Show” that all of the institutions tested already have “significant cushions” of capital and that Americans have every reason to be confident going forward.

“The results will be, on balance, reassuring,” Geithner said.

But some analysts are skeptical about what the bank stress tests actually achieved, or if their standards of evaluation were even valid in the first place. After all, the tests have occupied resources from both the federal government and the private sector for months, and have increased stock market volatility.

“The banks are healing themselves, and it could have been done a lot faster if government had gotten out of the way instead of parking the emergency equipment in the middle of the road,” Gary B. Townsend, a former banking regulator who now runs his own investment firm, told The New York Times.

Also, many bank employees, and even Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, have expressed concern that the tests weren’t stringent enough.

Last month, Warren gave rise to speculation that another stress test might be needed by the end of the year, after she called the adverse economic scenario employed by the Fed “disturbingly close” to current economic conditions.

In the Fed’s most pessimistic economic forecast, for example, the government projects the unemployment rate will climb to 10.3% in 2010. But unemployment already hit 8.5% in March and many economists are predicting that it rose to 8.9% in April. If that’s the case, it’s not hard to imagine the national jobless rate reaching double digits by the end of the year.

“The stress tests will make a terrific contribution if they are tough and transparent,” Warren said. “If they are not, they will be useless.”

Still, despite the test’s alleged failings, there is a hope that with more transparency and a greater buffer of equity, investor confidence will be restored.

“This is sending a message that the banks need more capital, but their losses are manageable and the system itself is solvent,” Kevin Fitzsimmons, an analyst at Sandler O’Neill told The Times. “Whether it sticks is something else.”

Source: Bank Stress Tests: The Results Are in; Now What?

I’m happy to report that it wasn’t an oversight: The reality is that Fifth Third – with $120 billion in assets – didn’t quite make the cut, since it’s actually not one of the Top 12 U.S. banks. But given the high level of reader interest in our report (which ran Wednesday), I thought it was worth a look.

Alas, while it isn’t one of the Top 12 banks, Fifth Third is another “Zombie,” lurking in the undergrowth, seeking new victims (investors).

A regional bank based in Cincinnati, Fifth Third has operations in the Midwest, most notably in Ohio and Michigan. It also has some operations in Florida. At first glance, it looks like SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) or Regions Financial Corp. (RF), both of which I classified as “Walking Wounded,” one of the four ratings I created to classify the banks’ health, and the rating that’s a notch higher than the dreaded “zombie” label, which was affixed to the worst banks in the group (is the worst of the group.

(The ratings, from worst to first, are: Zombie, Walking Wounded, Risky but Proud, and Hidden Gems.)

However, while the pattern of Fifth Third’s 2008 operations was similar to SunTrust and Regions, the Ohio bank’s results were significantly worse. Both Regions and Fifth Third reported losses for 2008 ($5.6 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively) after substantial goodwill write-offs. But Fifth Third also notched a $1.2 billion loss for 2008 – before goodwill write-offs, while Regions Financial made a $300 million profit. Fifth Third has slashed its quarterly dividend to a nominal 1 cent per share.

Though there are some positive aspects to note. For instance, much of Fifth Third’s fourth-quarter loss was due to its transferring $1.3 billion of troubled loans to “held-for-sale” status, causing an immediate write-off that worsened published results, compared to its peers.

On balance, however, Fifth Third’s situation is worse enough than Regions’ – its closest Big-12 analogue – that I concluded it belonged in the “Zombie” category, as opposed to the “Walking Wounded.”

Having said that, however, let me say that I have considerable sympathy for the bank and its management team. Citigroup Inc.’s (C) zombification came from unintelligent aggression over a period of 30 years, inventing many of the current financial crisis’ most-toxic products (such as auction rate preferred stock). And Bank of America Corp.’s (BAC) zombification came from – not one, but two – catastrophically foolish acquisitions within a year: Countrywide Financial Corp. and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

In Fifth Third’s case, there was no malice – Fifth Third did not invent any of the unsound idiocies that have caused global financial markets to collapse, nor did it go on an aggressive acquisition binge. Fifth Third was simply concentrated in two of the most economically troubled states – Ohio and Michigan.

In early 2008, Ohio had the highest rate of mortgage defaults in the United States – not because of its speculative frenzy in 2005-06, but because it had an exceptionally high proportion of borrowers whose ability to afford a mortgage was marginal.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, targeted towards lower-income households and hard-hit areas, may help Fifth Third’s business more than it will help other banks, in which case Fifth Third could edge back towards recovery.

But as it stands now, the bank has one foot in the grave, qualifying it for “Zombie” status

Source: Fifth Third (FITB), a Medium-Sized “Zombie” Bank

Martin Hutchinson reveals what “Hidden Gems” have conquered the 2008 banking crisis and the possible investment bargains they will bring this year.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week proposed a series of programs, totaling $1.5 trillion, to bail out the U.S. banking system. Of course, Geithner hasn’t told us precisely how he plans to spend the money, or identified which banks require such an enormous outlay.

So I thought it was worth looking at the United States’ 12 largest banks to see where the problems might be and identify which banks might need big infusions of government cash. I perused the financial statements of all 12 banks, and also looked at their market valuations.

Unlike when the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was proposed in September – when the projections for potential losses were largely financial conjecture – we now have important concrete data on the banking system’s troubles; namely, each of the bank’s annual financial reports for 2008.

Those figures were calculated with the most current knowledge of the economy’s housing crisis and other related financial disasters, and with the potential for losses on “bad assets” fully taken into account and examined in detail by auditors.  Further economic bad news might weaken new batches of assets, but at least the biggest problems should by now be fully apparent.

There is a lot of information – both about potential bailout needs and possible investment bargains – which we can gain from the banks’ annual earnings figures. For instance:

• Banks that made profits in the very difficult fourth quarter of 2008 are probably in good shape, especially if their loan-loss provisions exceeded their charge-offs (the amount actually lost).
• Even banks that lost money in the fourth quarter – an exceptionally harsh three months – have no immediate need for funding, provided they made money the rest of 2008 and seem likely to resume making money going forward.
• In this context, management’s dividend policy is a good indicator: If the dividend is maintained, rather than being sharply cut or suspended, management is probably genuinely confident about the bank’s position and outlook.
• Another good indicator of a bank’s health – at least of the market’s perception – is the ratio of share price to book value. If that’s below 25% or so the market lacks confidence in the bank’s ability to solve its problems.

Using these indicators, we can assess the viability of the leading U.S. banks. Each bank can then be classified with one of our four “official” Money Morning designations. These designations, or labels, consist of:

• Zombies: Institutions kept alive only by TARP funding. These subtract value from the economy and should be put out of their misery through controlled liquidation, with the healthy parts being salvaged.

• Walking Wounded: These banks may need a little bit more help, but are currently operating adequately on their own. One caveat: An intensification of economic downturn could push some of them into “zombie” status – or even bankruptcy.

• Risky but Proud: These banks have relatively high risks, because of acquisitions or their business models, but are operating at full blast and can hold their heads high for their success in dealing with 2008’s enormous difficulties.

• Hidden gems: These banks have conquered 2008’s difficulties, taken care of their bad debt problems, and still managed to make a substantial profit. Short of a repeat of what U.S. banks had to deal with from 1929-1933, as part of the Great Depression, these financial institutions should continue to operate in the black.

The Envelopes Please …

We listed the 12 largest U.S. banks by assets, as of Dec. 31, ignoring foreign-owned banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) (those last two are onetime investment banks that are technically now commercial banks, but still possess a very different business mix. We give you a rundown on the financial stability of each one, and give each institution with the single-most-appropriate of our four official Money Morning designations. The Top 12 banks, biggest first, are as follows:

1. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) – Zombie: BofA has about $2.8 trillion in assets including Merrill Lynch, which was acquired after the end of last year, and Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the nation’s No. 1 housing finance bank. It received $45 billion from TARP, plus $118 billion in guarantees against Merrill Lynch’s assets. At Friday’s closing share price of $5.17, the stock was trading at 21% of book value (it closed at $4.90 yesterday). BofA posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.55 billion, plus a Merrill Lynch net loss of $15.3 billion, which forced BofA to cut its quarterly dividend to a nominal one cent per share. Judging by other banks’ results, if Bank of America had made no acquisitions in 2008, it would be in solid shape. With the acquisitions, however, it’s a basket case – and may well need even more federal funding.

2. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) – Risky but Proud: JPMorgan has $2.175 trillion in assets, and received a $25 billion TARP investment. It’s a major international bank with a large investment banking operation. It bought The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., investment bank in March and the Washington Mutual Inc. thrift in September, both with Federal government help.

JPMorgan booked $702 million in net income in the fourth quarter and $5.6 billion in net income for all of 2008. The company also had a fourth quarter loan-loss provision of $8.5 billion and charge-offs of $4.5 billion. But there were also $2.9 billion worth of securities markdowns in the investment banking operation. Again, this bank is high-risk from an investment standpoint because of its acquisitions, but it appears to be in excellent shape with no immediate need for extra funding. Its Friday closing share price of $24.69 equates to 72% of net asset value, though it closed yesterday at $21.65, down 12.3%. It pays a quarterly dividend of 38 cents per share.

3. Inc. (C) – Zombie: Citi remains the nations’ third-largest bank, with $1.9 trillion in assets. It received a $45 billion TARP investment, plus guarantees on $301 billion of assets. At Friday’s close of $3.49, it was trading at 25% of book value. Citi lost $8.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 and $18.7 billion for the whole year. It was finally forced to sell control over its Smith Barney brokerage operation to Morgan Stanley in January, and has reduced its dividend to a nominal penny a share. Citi has been a serial flirter with bankruptcy over the past 30 years and remains a basket case. There are a few good assets buried within the rubble – chiefly because the company is so large and diverse.

4. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) – Risky but Proud: Wells Fargo has $1.3 trillion in assets, and garnered a $25 billion TARP investment. Originally a small bank based in San Francisco, Wells Fargo officially entered the heavyweight class with its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., late last year. Its Friday closing price of $15.76 equated to 104% of its book value, though it closed yesterday at $13.69. Wells Fargo’s stock pays a quarterly dividend of 34 cents. The company posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $2.55 billion, not including an $11 billion net loss at Wachovia. Wells Fargo’s full-year earnings totaled $2.84 billion. It had a fourth-quarter loan-loss provision of $8.4 billion, compared with actual charge-offs of $2.8 billion. Wachovia’s 2006 acquisition of the California mortgage bank Golden West Financial puts Wells Fargo at risk, but the company’s operations appear solid and it has no immediate need for extra funding.

5. PNC Financial Services (PNC) – Risky but Proud: The Pittsburgh-based PNC has $291 billion in assets, after buying the slightly larger National City Corp in October. It also received a $7.6 billion TARP investment. At Friday’s closing price of  $28.20, PNC’s shares were trading at 79% of book value. The company pays a quarterly dividend of 66 cents per common share, and posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $248 million (excluding costs associated with its acquisition of National City, the company had a fourth-quarter profit of $132 million}. PNC had provision for credit losses of $990 million, compared with net charge-offs of $207 million. This is one of the riskier banks because of the difficulties in integrating National City and possible problems in National City’s loan portfolio. But it appears to have no immediate need for funding and is currently profitable, and its stock is selling close to book value and paying a solid dividend. One final point: PNC’s shares fell only 6.1% yesterday, a day when the shares of most major banks fell by more than twice than amount, perhaps hinting that investors perceive less risk in PNC’s shares.

6. U.S. Bancorp (USB) – Hidden Gem: U.S. Bancorp has $266 billion in assets, and received $6.6 billion in TARP funding. This regional banking firm is based in Minneapolis, and the company operates primarily in the upper Midwest and Northwest. With a closing price of $12.40 on Friday, USB shares were trading at 131% of book value (the shares closed yesterday at $10.73, down 13.47%). The company also pays a quarterly dividend of 42.5 cents per common share. U.S. Bancorp posted a fourth-quarter profit of $260 million, and a profit of $2.94 billion for all of 2008. It also had a credit-loss provision $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with actual charge-offs of $627 million. U.S. Bancorp is in good shape, with no apparent need for extra money.

7. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) – Hidden Gem: New York Mellon has $237 billion in assets, mostly through its operations in New York and Pennsylvania. It received $3 billion in TARP funding. With closing price Friday at $25.26, Bank of New York Mellon was trading at 125% of its book value (the shares closed yesterday at $23.13, down 8.4%). The bank posted a fourth-quarter profit of $28 million, and net income of $1.39 billion for all of 2008. The fourth quarter was tough as for everybody, but Bank of New York Mellon appears to have no near-term need for funding.

8. SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) – Walking Wounded: Sun Trust has $189 billion in assets, and received $4.9 billion in TARP financing. Based in Atlanta, the bank has operations in the Mid-Atlantic and the Southeast. Its Friday closing price of $8.72 meant that SunTrust shares were trading at only 19% of their book value. The company posted a fourth-quarter loss of $379 million, but a profit of $747 million for all of 2008. It also had loan-loss provisions $962 million in the fourth quarter, compared with $552 million in charge-offs. SunTrust has reduced its quarterly dividend sharply to 10 cents per share, but it appears to be in no immediate trouble. However, if the economy deteriorates, the bank’s exposure to the Florida housing market could be an Achilles heel. Investors are clearly concerned: SunTrust shares took an 18% beating yesterday, and are down 88% in the past year, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday.

9. State Street Corp. (STT) – Hidden Gem: State Street had $174 billion in assets, and received $2 billion in TARP funding. It’s a Boston-based bank, but serves institutional investors throughout the world. At Friday’s closing price of $27, the shares were trading at 111% of their book value. State Street posted fourth-quarter earnings of $65 million, and 2008 earnings per share of $3.89, up 13% from the year before. With a global business, conservative leverage and Boston management, State Street could gather strength when the financial crisis finally ends.

10. Capital One Financial Corp. (COF) – Walking Wounded: Capital One has $161 billion in assets, and received a $3.6 billion TARP investment. It’s primarily a credit card company, headquartered in McLean VA. At Friday’s close of  $12.11, it is trading at just 20% of book value.  Capital One lost $1.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, and was just below break-even for the full year, but made $895 million from continuing operations. Its stock pays a quarterly dividend of 37.5 cents per share. Capital One is in dangerous waters and could soon succumb to zombification if credit-card problems really escalate.

11. BB&T Corp. (BBT) – Hidden Gem: BB&T has $152 billion in assets, and accepted a $3.1 billion TARP investment. It’s a regional bank, headquartered in Winston-Salem NC, with its primary operations in the Mid-Atlantic region. At Friday’s closing price of $15.33 a share, the stock was trading at about 58% of its book value. The company posted net earnings of $284 million in the fourth quarter, after loan write-offs of $528 million. It posted a profit of $1.5 billion for all of 2008, and pays a quarterly dividend of 47 cents a share. I’m sure it would gladly take more taxpayer money, but it certainly doesn’t appear to need it.

12. Regions Financial Corp. (RF) – Walking Wounded: Regions has $146 billion in assets, and received $3.5 billion in TARP financing. It’s a regional bank, headquartered in Birmingham, AL, with operations primarily in the Southeast. At Friday’s closing price of $3.38 a share, Regions’ stock was trading at about 18% of book value, and the bank has suspended its dividend. The company lost $5.6 billion in 2008, and its tangible net worth is only $10.5 billion. However, on an operating basis, it made a profit of about $300 million. Regions had a fourth-quarter loan-loss provision of $1.15 billion, and charge-offs of $796 million. I’m classifying it as “walking wounded,” but think it’s more likely to revive itself than to accept a toe-tag. In fact, it’s likely to need only a modest amount of additional funding to see its health improve.

And the Winners Are …

After examining the finances of these 12 major banks, I discovered that some additional analysis was needed – some in the investment arena, and the rest in the area of public policy. Once that was completed, I was able to reach some concrete conclusions about the new banking bill.

On the public policy side, it’s very difficult to justify $1.5 trillion of public money being used to buy assets from these guys. Of 12 banks I examined:

• Seven appear to be in solid shape, and are actually paying substantial dividends.
• Three appear weak, with possible needs for some additional help.
• And only two are actual basket cases.

Apart from the two dogs, all these banks have shown themselves perfectly capable of handling the difficult parts of their asset portfolios. That means that setting up a separate state bureaucracy to manage them, instead. is just asking for a high-cost taxpayer rip-off.

Unless it’s proposed to devote $1.5 trillion of taxpayer money to the apparently hopeless task of sorting out Bank of America and Citigroup, the true need is much smaller, with the remaining $315 billion from the original TARP program probably being more than ample for the other U.S. banks.

The most likely near-term need would appear to be capital injections into one or two of the weaker members of this Group of 12. As for the true bow-wows, the best solution from a public-policy and taxpayer-protection viewpoint would be to allow Bank of America and Citigroup to slide into Chapter 11 re-organization, with the ultimate objective being a breakup and sell-off of the worthwhile pieces, while holding back the relatively modest amounts of government financing or Federal Reserve money that might be needed to staunch any blood-letting that their bankruptcy caused.

As investments, the “Hidden Gems” for the most part represent very interesting potential bargains.

USB looks solid and profitable, with a dividend yield of an extraordinary 15.84% as of yesterday’s close.

BNY Mellon does not appear particularly risky, but yields only 4%; I actually prefer the “Risky-but-Proud” PNC, which has considerable upside if it can manage to digest its National City acquisition, avoid big credit losses and achieve cost savings.

State Street has a dividend yield of only 4.14%, but looks rock solid and its shares are trading at only about 5.9 times earnings.

BBT also looks solid, and has a massive dividend yield of 13.18%.

Source: The Top 12 U.S. Banks: From Zombies to Hidden Gems

“We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) told The Associated Press, which surveyed 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in federal bailout money, and asked how that capital was being used. JP Morgan received a $25 billion infusion as part of the U.S. Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

As an ongoing Money Morning investigation has demonstrated, billions in U.S. bank rescue funds are financing buyouts worldwide – instead of lending at home. Some of those buyouts deals are being done in markets as far away as China. Meanwhile, credit remains tight here in the U.S. market, a situation that could be alleviated if only the banks made the bailout money available to consumers in the form of loans.

Money Morning was one of the first news organizations to really examine how TARP money was being misdirected, and wasn’t being deployed as originally intended. More recently, The AP has joined the journalistic posse and published several investigative pieces, including one that looked at executive pay at financial institutions that received bailout money.

Some experts – such as investing icon Jim Rogers – say that bailouts in general are bad deals. They’re even worse if they’re funded by taxpayers who don’t know how their money is being spent [A related story on Rogers' views about the U.S. banking-bailout initiative appeared last week in Money Morning. To access that story, please click here].

The bottom line: Banks won’t say how they’re using the bailout money. That refusal – coupled with the almost non-existent disclosure and oversight of the TARP program – means the country may well never find out how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were spent.

Anatomy of a Survey

In its latest investigative offering, The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings? And what’s the plan for the rest?

According to The AP, none of the banks provided specific answers.

For instance, when Kevin Heine, a spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) – which received about $3 billion in TARP money – was asked how his institution was using the emergency infusion, he replied by stating that “we have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to.”

The words varied, but the basic message was the same from one bank to another. For instance, Barry Koling, a spokesman for SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI), the Atlanta, Ga.-based lender that received $3.5-billion in taxpayer cash, told the wire service that “we’re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking.”

Some banks actually admitted that they simply didn’t know where the money was going.

For instance, a spokesman for the Birmingham-based Regions Financial Corp. (RF) said the company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion in TARP money that it received.
“We manage our capital in its aggregate,” said Regions spokesman Tim Deighton.

These answers – or lack thereof – highlight both the secrecy surrounding the TARP program, as well as the lack of oversight by Congress. Given that the entire TARP program is worth at least $700 billion – roughly the equivalent of the economy of The Netherlands – those aren’t small issues.

About half of the $700 billion was earmarked for bailouts. But because the U.S. financial crisis was escalating so quickly – and because the Bush administration pushed Congress to approve the TARP plan quickly – Congress attached virtually no strings to the bailout funds. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stakes in key U.S. banks, allegedly hoping that the infusion of cash would enable them to heal themselves and start lending again.

As the deepening U.S. credit crisis has shown, that hasn’t happened.

No Oversight, No Accountability

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill late last year and implored them to lend the money – instead of hoarding it, spending it on executive bonuses, or for buyouts to get bigger. But there’s no process in place to guide this. And there are no consequences for banks that fail to comply with what U.S. lawmakers are asking.

Even worse: There’s no vehicle that enables taxpayers to find out what banks are doing – at least, not yet.

“It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,” Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout, told The AP. Stating that it takes “a lot of nerve not to give answers.”

Warren said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they’ve spent the money. But she also noted that she was quite surprised to learn that she even has to ask for that information.

“If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents,” Warren said.

In fact, the due diligence on the legislation that created TARP was so lax that lawmakers didn’t realize until much later that the bill they passed actually managed to create a potentially illegal tax loophole that grants banks a tax-break windfall of as much as $140 billion. Lawmakers were furious – but possibly powerless, afraid that a full-scale assault on the tax change could cause already-done deals to unravel, in turn causing investor confidence to do the same.

“Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One,” said U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a financial services committee member who opposed the bailout as it was being pushed through Congress. “Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?”

Buyouts Not Bailouts

Nearly every bank questioned – including Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) – recipients of some of the largest TARP infusions – responded to AP inquiries with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and to continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

As a Money Morning story detailed Friday, BofA just finalized its buyout of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (MER), creating the largest U.S. bank – as well as the biggest challenge yet for longtime BofA Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis. And Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) completed its $12.7 billion purchase of Wachovia Corp. (WB) – outbidding Citigroup Inc. (C) and making a massive bet that it accurately quantified the still existing risks in Wachovia’s huge portfolio of mortgage and real estate loans.

Those were just the latest in a long series of buyout deals being funded at least partly by TARP money, the ongoing Money Morning investigation has shown.

In response to The AP survey questions, a few banks detailed company-specific programs, such as a JP Morgan plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit organizations and healthcare companies over the next year. Marshall & Ilsley Corp. (MI), said the $1.75 billion bailout infusion it received allowed the Wisconsin-based bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes, said Senior Vice President Richard Becker.

This “foreclosure moratorium” will run through the end of March, the bank announced in December.

No Real Answers

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money. Some even said that the money couldn’t be tracked.

The bailout money “doesn’t have its own bucket,” said Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp. (BBT).

Denham said taxpayer money wasn’t used in BB&T’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. When asked how he could make such a statement – after stating that TARP money couldn’t be tracked – said BB&T would have made that deal even without the infusion.

Interestingly, a spokesman for BB&T told the Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail newspaper just before Christmas that the bank doesn’t like the federal government’s $700 billion financial rescue plan – and actually didn’t want to participate – but took the $3.1 billion because competitors are participating and because the Treasury Department urged it to.

According to the newspaper, BB&T – the largest bank in West Virginia – has been asked how it justifies participating in the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in light of BB&T Chairman John A. Allison IV’s promotion of the late author Ayn Rand’s philosophy of free market capitalism.

The reticence banks displayed when it came to discussing their use of TARP money bordered on the absurd. Most banks wouldn’t even say why they were keeping the details secret.
“We’re not sharing any other details. We’re just not at this time,” Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc. (CMA), which received $2.25-billion from the government, told The AP.

One didn’t even want to say they wouldn’t say, the wire service reported.

Heine, the New York Mellon spokesman who said he wouldn’t share spending specifics, added: “I just would prefer if you wouldn’t say that we’re not going to discuss those details.”
Morgan Stanley (MS) offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When The AP refused, Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez sent the wire service an e-mail saying: “We are going to decline to comment on your story.”

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the second half of the TARP money, the yet-to-be-released block worth $350 billion. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. said the federal department is trying to build up its monitoring of bank spending.

“What we’ve been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we’re doing this,” Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. “So we’re building this organization as we’re going.”

But that may all be too late, says Garrett, the New Jersey Republican congressman. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that U.S. taxpayers will never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

Source: U.S. Banks Refuse to Detail How They’re Spending Federal Bailout Money

Editors Note: This is the fifth installment of an investigative series in which Money Morning examines how U.S. banks are using federal bailout funds.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC), which will get $7.7 billion from Treasury’s Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), is using that cash infusion to help finance its $5.2 billion buyout of embattled National City Corp. (NCC).

And U.S. Bancorp (USB), which received a $6.6 billion capital infusion from that same rescue package, has acquired two California lenders – Downey Savings & Loan Association, F.A., a subsidiary of Downey Financial Corp. (DSL), and PFF Bank & Trust, a subsidiary of PFF Bancorp Inc. (OTC: PFFB). U.S. Bank agreed to assume the first $1.6 billion in losses from the two, but says anything beyond that amount is subject to a loss-sharing deal it struck with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

While the Treasury Department’s investment of more than $250 billion in U.S. financial institutions has been billed as a strategy that will bolster the health of the banking system and also jump-start lending, buyout deals such as these three show that the recapitalization plan has actually had a much different result – one that’s left whipsawed U.S. investors and lawmakers alike feeling burned, an ongoing
Money Morning investigation continues to show.

Those billions have touched off a banking-sector version of “Let’s Make a Deal,” in which the biggest U.S. banks are using government money to get even bigger. While that’s admittedly removing the smaller, weaker banks from the market – a possible benefit to consumers and taxpayers alike – this trend is also having a detrimental effect: It’s reducing the competition that’s benefited consumers and kept the explosion in banking fees from being far worse than it already is.

This all happens without any of the economic benefits that an actual increase in lending would have had. And it does nothing to address the billions worth of illiquid securities that remain on (or off) banks’ balance sheets – as the recent Citigroup Inc. (C) imbroglio demonstrates.

In fact, Treasury’s TARP program has even managed to create a potentially illegal tax loophole that grants banks a tax-break windfall of as much as $140 billion. Lawmakers are furious – but possibly powerless, afraid that a full-scale assault on the tax change could cause already-done deals to unravel, in turn causing investor confidence to do the same.

One could even argue that since this first bailout (the $700 billion TARP initiative) has fueled takeovers – and not lending – the government had no choice but to roll out the more-recent $800 billion stimulus plan that was aimed at helping consumers and small businesses – a move that may spur lending and spending, but that still adds more debt to the already-sagging federal government balance sheet.

At the end of the day, these buyout deals are bad ones no matter how you evaluate them, says R. Shah Gilani, a retired hedge fund manager and expert on the U.S. credit crisis who is the editor of the Trigger Event Strategist, which identifies trading opportunities emanating from such financial-crisis “aftershocks” as this buyout binge.

“Why in the name of capitalism are taxpayers being fleeced by banks that are being given our money to grow their businesses with the further backstop of more of our money having to be thrown to the FDIC when they fail?” Gilani asked. “Consolidation does not mean that bad loans and illiquid securities are somehow merged out of existence. It means that they are being acquired under the premise that a larger, more consolidated depositor base will better be able to bear the weight of those bad assets. What in heaven’s name prevents depositors from exiting when the merged banks continue to experience massive losses and write-downs? The answer to that question would be … nothing.”

Lining Up for Deal Money

In launching TARP, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. said the government’s goal was to restore public confidence in the U.S. financial services sector – especially banks – so private investors would be willing to advance money to banks and banks, in turn, would be willing to lend.

“Our purpose is to increase the confidence of our banks, so that they will deploy, not hoard, the capital,” Paulson said.

Whatever Treasury’s actual intent, the reality is that banks are already sniffing out buyout targets, while snuffing out lending – and the TARP money is the reason for both.

Fueled by this taxpayer-supplied capital, the wave of consolidation deals is “absolutely” going to accelerate, says Louis Basenese, a mergers-and-acquisitions expert who is also the editor of The Takeover Trader newsletter. “When it comes to M&A, there’s always a pronounced ‘domino effect.’ Consolidation breeds more consolidation as industry leaders conclude they have to keep acquiring in order to remain competitive.”

Indeed, banking executives have been quite open about their expansionist plans during media interviews, or during conference calls related to quarterly earnings.

Take BB&T Corp. (BBT). During a conference call that dealt with the bank’s third-quarter results, Chief Executive Officer John A. Allison IV said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based bank “will probably participate” in the government program. Allison didn’t say whether the federal money would induce BB&T to boost its lending. But he did say the bank would likely accept the money in order to finance its expansion plans, The Wall Street Journal said.

“We think that there are going to be some acquisition opportunities – either now or in the near future – and this is a relatively inexpensive way to raise capital [to pay the buyout bill],” Allison said during the conference call.

And BB&T is hardly alone. Zions Bancorporation (ZION), a Salt Lake City-based bank that’s been squeezed by some bad real-estate loans, recently said it would be getting $1.4 billion in federal money. CEO Harris H. Simmons said the infusion would enable Zions to boost “prudent” lending and keep paying its dividend – albeit at a reduced rate.

Sounds good, right? Not so fast. During a conference call about earnings, Zions Chief Financial Officer Doyle L. Arnold said any lending increase wouldn’t be dramatic. Besides, Arnold said, Zions will also use the money “to take advantage of what we would expect will be some acquisition opportunities, including some very low risk FDIC-assisted transactions in the next several quarters.”

Buyouts Already Accelerating

With all the liquidity the world’s governments and central banks have injected into the global financial system, the pace of worldwide deal making is already accelerating. Global deal volume for the year has already passed the $3 trillion level – only the fifth time that’s happened, although it took about three months longer for that to happen this year than it did a year ago.

At a time when the global financial crisis – and the accompanying drop-off in available deal capital (either equity or credit) – has caused about $150 billion in already-announced deals to be yanked off the table since Sept. 1, liquidity from the U.S. and U.K. governments has ignited record levels of financial-sector deal making.

According to Dealogic, government investments in financial institutions has reached $76 billion this year – eight times as much as in all of 2007, which was the previous record year. And that total doesn’t include the $250 billion in TARP money, or other deals that Paulson & Co. are helping engineer – JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (JPM) buyouts of The Bear Stearns Cos. and Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMUQ), for instance.

If You Can’t Beat ‘em… Buy ‘em?

When it comes to identifying possible buyout targets, M&A experts such as Basenese say there are some very clear frontrunners.

“I’d put regional banks with solid footprints in the Southeast high on the list, and for two reasons,” Basenese said. “First, demographics point to stronger growth [in this region] as retirees migrate to warmer climates – and bring their assets along for the trip. Plus, the Southeast is largely un-penetrated by large national banks. An acquisition of a regional bank like SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) would provide a distinct competitive advantage.”

There’s a very good reason that smaller players may be next: Big banks and small banks have the easiest times – relatively speaking, of course – of raising capital. It’s toughest for the regional players. Big banks can tap into the global financial markets for cash, while the very small – and typically, highly local – banks can raise money from local investors.

The afore-mentioned stealthy shift in the U.S. Tax Code actually gives big U.S. banks a potential windfall of as much as $140 billion, says Gilani, the credit crisis expert and Trigger Event Strategist editor. What does this tax-change do? By acquiring a failed bank whose only real value is the losses on its books, the successful suitor would basically then be able to use the acquired bank’s losses to offset its own gains and thus avoid paying taxes.

“While everyone was panicking, the Treasury Department slipped through a ruling that allows banks who acquire other banks to fully write-off all the acquired bank’s bad debts,” Gilani says. “For 22 years, the law was such that if you were to buy a company that had losses, say, of  $1 billion, you couldn’t just take that loss against your own $1 billion profit and tell Uncle Sam, ‘Gee, now my loss offsets my profit, so I don’t have any profit, and I don’t owe you any tax.’ It was a recipe for tax evasion that demanded an appropriate law that only allows limited write-offs over an extended period of years.”

Given these incentives, who will be doing the buying? Clearly, the biggest U.S.-based banks will be the main hunters. But The Takeover Trader’s Basenese says that even foreign banks will be on the prowl for cheap U.S. banking assets.

Basenese also believes that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) will be “big spenders.” Each will use TARP funds to help accelerate its transformation from an investment bank into a bank holding company.

The changeover will require each company to build up a big base of deposits. And the best way to do that is to buy other banks, Basenese says.

“One thing [the wave of deals] does is to restore confidence in the sector,” Basenese said. “It will go a long way in convincing CEOs that it’s safe to use excess capital to fund acquisitions, and to grow, instead of using it to defend against a proverbial run on the bank.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Investors who play the merger game correctly will do well. But the game itself won’t necessarily whip the industry into championship form, Gilani says.

“While consolidation, instead of outright collapses, in the banking industry may serve to relieve the FDIC of its burden to make good on failed banks, it in no way guarantees fewer failures,” he said. “In fact, it may only serve to guarantee, in some cases, even larger failures.”

Source: Billions in U.S. Bank Rescue Funds are Fueling Buyouts Worldwide – Instead of Lending at Home

While this week’s data from the manufacturing and housing sectors will be eagerly anticipated, nothing compares to Friday’s reports on unemployment and the picture of the ailing labor market.  After nine consecutive months of job contraction, few analysts hold out much hope for optimism.  In fact, some believe the jobless rate will climb to 7.5% during 2009.

Clearly the new president will have some major problems to solve, perhaps the biggest being that he’ll have to find a way to restore investor confidence.

After all that’s happened in the global economy and in the stock market in recent weeks – with the tremendous whipsaw volatility, that will be easier said than done.

Even so, watch this week as Money Morning carries several investment reports that will tell you what to expect, what to avoid, and where you may potentially profit.

Stay tuned.

Market Matters

For most investors, Halloween was a welcome treat from the haunted trickery of the markets over prior few weeks.  In fact, despite some frightful economic releases that virtually confirmed recession (as already noted), the major equity indexes received a nice reprieve this past week as investors moved beyond mass hysteria and found bargains in the carnage.  On Tuesday alone, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Standard & Poor’s 500 Index each shot up more than 10%, and then proceeded with their remarkable (if not illogical) runs as the week continued.

Despite the positive moves, the Dow plunged by 14% in October, while the S&P 500 lost about 17%, making it among the worst performing months in over two decades.  The volatility was almost too much for investors to bear as the Dow experienced triple digits moves from open to close on all but three trading sessions.  Global markets underwent similar gyrations, with Hong Kong’s major index – the Hang Seng Index, for example, plunging 12.7% one day before soaring 14.4% the very next session.

The recent panic seemed to have subsided as some of the stimulus packages began to take effect.  The credit markets have thawed as corporations took advantage of the Fed’s decision to buy short-term commercial paper, thus, providing them much needed liquidity.  Major banks began receiving capital injections from the government as part of the bailout package and were “told” (in no uncertain terms) by their new “partner” to re-initiate lending programs.

Capital One Financial Corp. (COF) and Sun Trust Banks Inc. (STI) chose to be participate in the government’s generosity by selling preferred stock and warrants, though both were rumored to be eyeing weaker institutions as acquisition targets – a a strategy that may have differed from the Bush Administration’s goal of enhanced lending. [Editor’s Note: For an in-depth report on U.S. bank’s using government  money to mount takeover campaigns – instead of for increased lending --  please click here. The report is free of charge].

The week’s quarterly earnings releases were mixed at best though companies continued to warn about future weakness (which will hopefully lead to some positive surprises).  Exxon-Mobil Corp. (XOM) reaped another record quarter and rival Chevron Corp. (CVX) – the subject of a recent “Buy, Sell or Hold” featurue here at Money Morning just saw its profits double during the period.  Bear in mind, crude has plunged over 50% since mid-July (and suffered its worst monthly decline on record) so their future results may not be as strong.

United States Steel Corp. (X) announced favorable earnings, athough it also warned that weakness in commodities could impact its operations. The Procter & Gamble Co. (PG) experienced a better-than-expected quarter, though management reduced its sales estimates for the remainder of the year.  Motorola Inc. (MOT) announced a quarterly loss and laid off 3,000 workers to cut expenses. General Motors Corp. (GM) and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (ADR. HMC) both reported poor quarters, as automakers struggled worldwide.

Economically Speaking

For days, weeks, months, maybe even years, analysts warned about the dreaded “R” word and, with each new report, the inevitability of such a downturn became more and more possible.

The afore-mentioned third-quarter GDP report confirmed that the economy actually contracted by 0.3% during the period, the worst results in seven years.  By definition, two straight quarters of negative growth translates into a recession, so the economy is officially halfway there (especially since the fourth quarter data is shaping up to be just as depressing).

Sluggish consumer activity highlighted the GDP report, as consumer spending plunged by 3.1% during the quarter. Such activity accounts for about 70% of the growth of the economy, so the ongoing concerns about future employment, market losses, and housing valuations (among others) have kept consumers out of the malls. And those reports now to significantly hinder the upcoming holiday season.  In fact, a recent BDO Seidman survey showed that retail-marketing execs believe their November and December sales will fall by 2.7% from the same periods last year.

On an even more pessimistic note, consumer confidence in October fell to its lowest level ever reported.

Almost lost in the negativity was the fact that new home sales actually climbed by an unexpected 2.7% in September, as bottom fishers found some bargains within the worst housing market in decades.  Still, sales remained more than 30% behind last year’s levels.

The central bankers continued their (somewhat coordinated) efforts to stem the global economic slowdown.  U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and friends announced a half-percentage-point cut in the Fed Funds rate, reducing its target for that benchmark for U.S. interest rate. It was the second such move in October.

Some Fed watchers believe that policymakers could drop the rate even lower as conditions seem worse today than when that rate touched this level – in 2003.  Others feel that such moves have become more symbolic than substantive, and believe the Fed needs to halt future actions to let the lower rates work their ways through the system and begin impacting the economy over the next six to 12 months.

In other moves, central bankers in South Korea, China, and Norway each reduced their respective rates, and the European Central Bank (ECB) appears to be leaning toward a similar cut next week.

Weekly Economic Calendar

Source: Uncertainty Escalates as Tomorrow’s Presidential Election Looms

This from Money Morning:

While the U.S. government’s plan to invest $250 billion into U.S. financial institutions has been billed as a strategy that will bolster the health of the banking system and also jump-start lending, the recapitalization plan is likely to have a secondary effect – one that whipsawed U.S. taxpayers likely won’t be very happy to learn about.

Those billions are a virtual lock to set off a merger tsunami in which the biggest banks use taxpayer money to get bigger – admittedly removing the smaller, weaker banks from the market, but ultimately also reducing the competition that benefited consumers and kept the explosion in banking fees from being far worse than it already is.

One last point: Experts say that takeovers financed by the government infusions are likely to have less of a beneficial impact on the economy than an actual increase in lending levels would have. And because so much of this money will be used for buyouts, the reduction in the benchmark Federal Funds target rate announced yesterday (Wednesday) by central bank policymakers will likely do very little to actually spur lending, experts say.

Fueled by this taxpayer-supplied capital, the wave of consolidation deals is “absolutely” going to accelerate, Louis Basenese, a mergers-and-acquisitions (M&A) expert and the editor of The Takeover Trader newsletter, told Money Morning.

“When it comes to M&A, there’s always a pronounced ‘domino effect.’ Consolidation breeds more consolidation as industry leaders conclude they have to keep acquiring in order to remain competitive.”

Lining Up for Deal Money

Late last week, the Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (NYSE:PNC) became the first U.S. bank to make use of the government’s Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), announcing plans to purchase the beleaguered National City Corp. (NYSE:NCC) for $5.2 billion. To help finance the purchase, PNC will sell $7.7 billion worth of preferred stock and warrants to the U.S. Treasury Department, as part of that department’s bank-recapitalization program.

With regards to that program, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson recently said – yet again – that the government’s goal was to restore the public’s confidence in the U.S. financial services sector – especially banks – so that private investors would be willing to advance money to banks and banks, in turn, would be willing to lend, The Wall Street Journal reported.

“Our purpose is to increase the confidence of our banks, so that they will deploy, not hoard, the capital,” Paulson said last week.

Whatever the Treasury Department’s actual intent, the reality is that banks are already sniffing out buyout targets, thanks to the TARP money. Indeed, they’ve been quite open about it during conference calls related to quarterly earnings, or in media interviews.

Take the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based BB&T Corp. (NYSE:BBT). During a conference call that dealt with the bank’s third-quarter results, Chief Executive Officer John A. Allison IV said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based bank “will probably participate” in the bailout program, accepting federal infusions. Allison didn’t say whether the federal money would induce BB&T to boost its lending. But he did say the bank would probably accept the money in order to finance its expansion plans, The Wall Street Journal said.

“We think that there are going to be some acquisition opportunities – either now or in the near future – and this is a relatively inexpensive way to raise capital [to pay the buyout bill],” Allison said during the conference call.

Talk about brazen. However, he’s not alone. For instance, there’s also Zions Bancorporation (NASDAQ:ZION), a Salt Lake City-based bank that’s feeling the pain due to losses from bad real-estate loans. On Tuesday, Zions announced it would be receiving $1.4 billion in capital from the Treasury Department – cash it would use to boost lending and keep paying a dividend, albeit at a reduced rate.

“As a strong regional bank with a major focus on financing small and middle-market businesses, we are pleased to have this additional capital to better serve the lending needs of customers throughout the Western United States,” Chairman and CEO Harris H. Simmons said. “We expect to deploy this new capital in the form of prudent lending in the markets we serve. This new lending will be good for our country’s economy, our customers and our company.”

However, during a recent earnings conference call, Zions Chief Financial Officer Doyle L. Arnold said that while new capital might allow it to boost lending, the increase wouldn’t necessarily be a dramatic one. The Journal said. Besides, Zions will also use the money “to take advantage of what we would expect will be some acquisition opportunities, including some very low risk FDIC-assisted transactions in the next several quarters.”

Buyouts Already Accelerating

The reality is that – with all the liquidity the world’s governments and central banks have injected into the global financial system – the global game of “Let’s Make a Deal” has already become a reality.

Indeed, as WSJ.com reported a week ago, global deal volume for the year has already passed the $3 trillion level – only the fifth time that’s happened, although it took about three months longer this year than it did a year ago.

This time around, the new kings of deal making aren’t such highly compensated “Masters of the Universe” as The Blackstone Group (NYSE:BX) LP’s Stephen A. Schwarzman, or KKR & Co. LP’s Henry R. Kravis, The Journal’s blog reported. Instead, they are the much-lower-paid – but decidedly more powerful – civil servants of the U.S. and U.K. governments: Treasury Secretary Paulson, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, the Web site stated.

At a time when the global financial crisis – and the accompanying drop-off in available deal capital (either equity or credit) – has caused about $150 billion in already-announced deals to be yanked off the table since Sept. 1, liquidity from the U.S. and U.K. governments have ignited record levels of financial sector deal making.

According to Dealogic, government investments in financial institutions has reached $76 billion this year – eight times as much as in all of 2007, which was the previous record year. And that total doesn’t include the $125 billion the U.S. government is investing in the large U.S. banks as part of its rescue package, the similar amount it may invest in smaller banks, or other deals that the feds are helping engineer (JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (NYSE:JPM) buyouts of The Bear Stearns Cos. and Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMUQ) are two such examples).

When the dust settles on this buyout boom, we may well have a record in hand that’s even less beatable than Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. That’s because with the Fed, the U.K. and other governments and central banks doling out the capital, there’s no financial-sector equivalent of Kenny Keltner to bring this buyout fest to an abrupt close. That means that the “hits” – the buyout deals – will just keep coming.
If You Can’t Beat ‘em… Buy ‘em?

When it comes to identifying possible buyout targets, M&A experts such as The Takeover Trader’s Basenese say there are some very clear frontrunners.

“I’d put regional banks with solid footprints in the Southeast high on the list, and for two reasons,” Basenese said. “First, demographics point to stronger growth [in this region] as retirees migrate to warmer climes – and bring their assets along for the trip. Plus, the Southeast is largely un-penetrated by large national banks. An acquisition of a regional bank like SunTrust Banks Inc. (NYSE:STI) would provide a distinct competitive advantage.”

With a lot of bigger deals already in the books, many analysts agree with Basenese’s assessment, and are now watching to see if regional banks will be the next to succumb to the dealmaker’s bid. Indeed, earlier this month, Matthew Schultheis, a senior analyst at Boenning & Scattergood Inc., told a reporter that he expected this to be a “trend that continues at least through the first half of ’09, unless some of these [companies] stabilize. It could even last beyond that.”

There’s a very good reason that smaller players may be next: Big banks and small banks have the easiest times – relatively speaking, of course – of raising capital. It’s toughest for the regional players. Big banks can tap into the global financial markets for cash, while the very small – and typically, highly local – banks can raise money from local investors. Regional banks have a tougher time, says Doug Landy, a partner in the U.S. banking practice of the law firm of Allen & Overy.

“A regional bank lacks both the international access and the local character,” Landy told The Associated Press.

Several big regional banks at least acknowledged the possibility of buyouts on recent earnings conference calls, The Journal reported.

The Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp (NYSE:FITB) talked about raising $1 billion in capital by selling non-core assets. Bank executives said that a difficult 2009 is “a view that continues to seem likely to us.” They confirmed discussions with a number of possible investors or asset-purchasers, and said they were “confident that an attractive transaction would be available to us as the opportunity and timing are appropriate including the ability to generate capital in excess of our original expectations.” Earlier this week, however, it announced that it was getting $3.4 billion in TARP funds, the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper reported.

Clearly, the bank isn’t thinking in terms of an outright sale, or at least doesn’t admit to that publicly.

One other potential buyout candidate includes Huntington Bancshares Inc. (NASDAQ:HBAN), a Columbus, Ohio-based regional that just received a $1.4 billion federal infusion of its own, the Plain Dealer said.

Who will be doing the buying? The Takeover Trader’s Basenese tells investors to “also look for banks with foreign ownership” to be on the prowl for acquisitions.

“Just like Spain’s Banco Santander SA (ADR: STD) [which earlier this month said it would buy the 76% of Philadelphia-based Sovereign Bancorp Inc. (NYSE:SOV) it didn’t already own for about $1.9 billion], foreign-based banks will likely jump at the opportunity to expand their U.S. presence at a discount,” Basenese said. “M&T Bank Corp. (NYSE:MTB) fits the bill, as Allied Irish Banks PLC (ADR: AIB) already owns a 24% stake.”

Then there’s the Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (NYSE:USB), which is one of the few regionals still in a strong position. CEO Richard K. Davis has reportedly rejected the idea of buying large banks that are already in trouble and was asked if the new rescue plans might change his mind.

“It makes it a little easier to do those things,” Davis told The Journal. “But first and foremost, whether the capital is less expensive or the opportunity that TARP is present, we’ll continue to look at deals on an accretive basis where they make sense and where they would fit into this company’s long-term structure. So it would definitely make it more attractive, and so some of our positioning and our targets look more attractive and our valuation is easier now.”

There’s something else to consider, Davis said.

“To the extent that [a deal] has to hit all of the normal bellwether marks and the expectations we have for the near term and long term, it still has to be a good deal. So it doesn’t really change our philosophy, but it does make it easier to find our way to partnerships that might be more accretive sooner.”

Basenese, the M&A expert, believes that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) will be “big spenders,” using the TARP funds to help accelerate their conversions from an investment bank to a bank holding company – a transition that will require them to bulk up their deposit bases. And the quickest way to do that is to buy other banks, Basenese says.

“One thing [the wave of deals] does is to restore confidence in the sector,” Basenese said, “It will go a long way in convincing CEOs that it’s safe to use excess capital to fund acquisitions, and to grow, instead of using it to defend against a proverbial run on the bank.”

Source: Billions in Bank Rescue Funds are Fueling Buyout Deals, and not the Increase in Loans That Would Help Ease the Financial Crisis

In Thursday’s open interest changes, gold o.i. fell 9,706 contracts. About 3,000 of that decrease was delivery related, so the o.i. was actually down around 6,700 contracts. Silver o.i. on Thursday rose a smallish 136 contracts.

Friday’s Commitment of Traders report showed big improvements across the board as the tech funds chucked their longs and the dealers either covered shorts and/or went long themselves. In silver, the tech funds in the Non-Commercial category improved their positions by 7,116 contracts and the bullion banks in the Commercial category improved their position in the other direction by covering and going long 9,184 contracts. The difference between these two numbers is the change in the ‘Nonreportable’ category…the small traders…those holding 150 contracts or less.

In gold, the tech funds in the Non-Commercial category reduced their net long position by 12,334 contracts, while the bullion banks reduced both their long and short positions by a largish 17,390 contracts. The other 5,056 contracts (the difference between these two numbers) were changes in the small traders, who decreased their net long positions by that amount. The latest COT report is linked here.

As far as concentration ratios go, the ‘8 or less’ bullion banks in the Commercial category hold 83.7% of all the gold short positions on the Comex, and 80.8% of all short positions in silver. This is the elephant in the precious metal’s living room that the CFTC/NYMEX and your silver and gold companies deny exists.

In a telephone conversation with Ted Butler yesterday, he figured that since the cut-off for Friday’s COT report that happened on Tuesday…there has been a further clean out in silver of around 2-3,000 contracts and in gold, maybe about 15,000 or so. However, Ted’s not sure whether the clean out is finished or not. He figures that the bottom may not be in…and the boyz have more work to do…especially in gold. So are we at the bottom…and it’s onwards and ever upwards starting next week…or do the bullion bank have other plans? I sort of agree with Ted, because the 200 day moving averages in both metals are still standing, and if the boyz are trying to paint a perfect technical picture, we’ve got a little more pain to go…but I’m hoping for the best anyway.

I had a radio interview with Al Korelin of Korelin Economics on Friday afternoon. Most of what I just wrote about is in it. But if you wish to listen anyway, the link is here.

In the US financial markets’ ongoing version of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”, I see in a story released on Friday evening (when few would notice) of another bank going under. This time it was Bradenton, Florida-based First Priority Bank which will re-open on Monday as branches of Atlanta-based Sun Trust Bank (NYSE:STI). Also I see that Governor Arnold “The Terminator” Schwarzenegger, facing a budget deficit of $15.2 billion, eliminated thousands of part-time and temporary state jobs Thursday and ordered that 200,000 state workers receive the federal minimum wage. Could California be the first state to go under in this “Greater Depression”? And lastly, in a Reuters story, banks were borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at the rate of $17.45 billion/day during the last week. If they kept that rate up for an entire year, the bank borrowing from the Fed would total about $4.3 Trillion dollars! Take a red pill and a blue pill.

Since it’s the weekend, I’ve got three items that I’ve been saving for your Saturday reading enjoyment. They are all inter-related and well worth investing your time in reading…especially the first one. Most of us (including this writer) knows squat about Iran. Here’s the Reader’s Digest version entitled “The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress”. It was an eye-opener for me…as it will be for you. The link is here.

The second article is from the Asia Times. You won’t find this story on CNN, CNBS or Fox News. It appears that Iraq wants a timetable for complete US military withdrawal…and the US government is not amused. The story is entitled “You need Uncle Sam, Iraq told”…and the link is here.

And lastly, from the conservative web site, humanevents.com…a most excellent piece by nationally syndicated columnist, Patrick Buchanan. Contained within, is the absolute naked truth about US imperialism that has reached the end of its tether…at least the truth as far as most non-Americans see it…including me. It’s well worth the read…and the link is here.

GSE debt is held by financial institutions around the world. Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets. – U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson

Today’s ‘blast from the past’ was recorded at Royal Albert Hall, South Kensington, London…at the Night of the Proms. Turn up your speakers…then click here.

It’s been a year since Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC) announced that its two big hedge funds had blown up and were worthless…and what you’re watching out there in the financial world right now is the 21st century equivalent of selling snake oil out of the back of a covered wagon. It’s my opinion that you have less than a month to get your financial affairs in order, because after that, all bets will be off.

Enjoy what’s left of your weekend and I’ll see you here bright and early on Tuesday morning.

Source: And Then There’s This…Saturday, August 2nd, 2008