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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha ha…don’t make us laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

’Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We leave you with the question.

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

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: The Undead of the Banking World

And I’m going to give you a chance to join them.

If you think Canada escaped the downward trend in U.S. banking, think again. While the country may not have plunged headfirst into subprime mortgages, it did dip heavily into risky derivatives. The leverage it took on generated impressive returns on equity in good times, but that same leverage is set to wipe out equity today.

Shareholders in one “safe” Canadian bank will have to rethink their loyalty. Its looming solvency crisis practically guarantees a dividend cut. And that’s our catalyst for this month’s short play action – offering us a chance for 200% profit potential.

Accounting secrets have not yet obliterated Canadian bank earnings – like those of U.S. banks – because the Canadians have not yet accounted for the coming tsunami of mortgage, consumer loan, and corporate loan losses.

Here’s how they loaded those loan books with hidden risk.

The Basics of Bank Accounting

Bank shareholders leverage their capital by borrowing short-term money, primarily from depositors. Your bank account is an asset for you, but it’s a liability for your bank. For every dollar of capital, bank shareholders borrow 15, 20, or even 30 dollars from senior creditors – otherwise, they could not afford to own their huge portfolios of loans and securities. Here’s the core problem: Bank shareholders and their agents (bank executives) are lending other people’s money. So bankers are looser with lending than if they were lending their own savings.

The accounting process to determine commercial bank profits is inherently speculative, as well. Banks book an upfront profit on every new loan they make, minus a small “provision” for loan losses – just in case some loans wind up going bad. These upfront profits have the habit of disappearing when loans “season,” and banks discover how many deadbeats owe them money. In case you’ve been wondering what has wiped out the majority of the S&P 500’s trailing earnings, here’s your answer: Banks and brokerages reversing most of the profits they booked on loans made and securities bought at the peak of the bubble.

Banks claimed to make good money loans to every borrower. But somebody sure was lying, since they’re taking charges against these older vintage loans and securities left and right. And the industrywide provision for loan losses, which is the single most important – and unpredictable – cost in a bank’s income statement, has been soaring. Once these provision expenses soared on the backs of delinquent loans, the banking sector’s earnings plunged deep into negative territory.

Throw in a few more explosive ingredients like deposit insurance, central bank lending facilities, loan syndication, and securitization and we’re left with a system for which sales volume – not risk management – is priority No. 1.

Those who claim the banking system is well capitalized – including those who designed the unstressful “stress test” – hold rosy assumptions about how many loans will go bad and how much banks will earn from existing loans to have a shot at outrunning their credit losses.

Lots of bank stocks remain in a fragile state. This month, we’re going to buy puts on the Canadian bank most ready to fall. And now’s your chance to join us. If you want the name of my latest play, just click here to learn more about Strategic Short Report.

Regards,
Dan Amoss

Source: Don’t Bet on Canada’s Banks

The uniqueness of Wall Street’s products is that simply by buying any of their products, purchasers own an opportunity to make money. If bankers can manufacture products that have greater moneymaking potential, it stands to reason that they can sell them for a greater profit. And like in any other business, the more products and services bankers sell with higher profit margins, the more they make.

The ingenuity of Wall Street is on full display when it comes to packaging products that incorporate mortgages. Banks assemble large numbers of individual mortgages into pools and sell pieces of those pools as securities.

The buyer of one of these securities owns a piece of the cash flow that comes into the pool every month when the actual mortgage holders send in their monthly payments. In order to manufacture higher-margin mortgage-related products, bankers amassed pools of subprime mortgages, where the underlying mortgages were debts of less than high quality but where the borrowers were willing to pay higher interest to qualify for that mortgage.

The underlying higher-interest-rate mortgages in the new pools meant that the subprime-mortgage-backed securities would pay investors a greater return, so Wall Street charged more for these products. And, in an effort to further boost the yields on these subprime-mortgage-backed securities, bankers “structured” pools into “collateralized mortgage obligations.”

Structuring is a method by which the cash flow from a particular pool of mortgages does not simply “pass through” to the investors, but is actually re-routed to different investors who pay a higher price for a preferred directed cash flow. Again, the ingenuity of these products is that they offer different potential earnings opportunities for the purchasers, and have higher profit margins for the bankers who manufacture, sell and trade them.

Source: How Wall Street Manufactures Financial Services Products

But because these potential borrowers were financially disadvantaged, they also represented a bigger credit risk. Banks didn’t like being told to make mortgages to high-risk borrowers because they wouldn’t be able sell these loans off to anyone else.

Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) were mandated to insure these higher-risk loans so that with a de facto government guarantee these “subprime” mortgages could be repackaged and sold, removing them from the inventory of the originating bank.

Thus the seeds of the subprime mortgage debacle were planted.

A series of devastating events – the bursting of the tech stock bubble in 2000, the 2001 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and the war on Iraq and the spike in oil prices, to name the key ones – posed serious recessionary threats.

The U .S. Federal Reserve aggressively lowered interest rates to stimulate the economy. A long period of low rates reduced returns for investors, but simultaneously afforded borrowers cheap financing. Wall Street went to work manufacturing all manner of products to squeeze extra yield out of this ultra-low-interest-rate environment.

Subprime collateralized mortgage-backed loans, similarly structured and packaged commercial mortgage-backed loans, leveraged corporate loans, and derivatives (especially credit default swaps), were manufactured in massive quantities.

Many of the products were rated investment grade by the major ratings agencies, which were incongruously but handsomely paid by the manufacturing banks to rate their products. Higher ratings meant easier sales and greater profits.

Buyers of the products, including the banks themselves, used cheap financing to leverage returns by borrowing from each other to create and buy more and more products.

Low interest rates were driving homebuyers to banks and mortgage finance companies, most of which were offering cheap “teaser” rates and no-document “liar loans” – all in a mad rush to capitalize on what was actually a rapidly inflating housing bubble.

Consumers were flush with credit and used it, as Wall Street took credit card receivables, packaged them into pools, sold them, and gave the proceeds back to credit card issuers, who then offered the public even more credit in a competitive horn of plenty. Then the housing bubble burst, and the music stopped. Banks were afraid to lend because they had lent too much to too many suspect borrowers, including each other, meaning their collateral was depreciating faster than any econometric model had ever calculated.

As banks’ capital evaporated, lending stopped everywhere. The securities markets imploded, leaving us in a state of suspended animation in which there’s no longer any way to borrow, produce and spend.

Source: How Subprime Borrowing Fueled the Credit Crisis

In essence, the Air Force is offering a pilot site for a coal-to-liquid (CTL) project at a base in Montana. This will be the first of many such CTL facilities around the nation. The idea is that funding will come from the private sector, not the Air Force or any other government source.

The Air Force will sweeten the pot, however, by guaranteeing that it will purchase the fuel that comes out of the CTL plants. Eventually, much of the Air Force fleet will fly on a mixture of CTL fuel and traditional petroleum-based fuel. For the past two years or so, the Air Force has been qualifying its planes to fly on synthetic fuels. Just recently, a B-1B “Lancer” bomber went supersonic over New Mexico on a mix of synthetic fuel. So synthetic fuels work.

The Wagon Train Is Forming Up

Some of the synthetic fuels information has made it into various trade press publications. But the major media have pretty much ignored the synthetic fuels development. Even on Wall Street, this program is under the radar screens. I guess the people on Wall Street are too busy counting up their losses from subprime mortgages. But the wagon train is forming up on the trail to synthetic fuels. Things are going to start happening, and soon.

********The Opportunity of a Lifetime********

Why I Will Pay You $6,503 to Cancel Your Agora Financial Subscription Right Now

There’s more than $6 grand staring right at you. All you have to do is decide whether you want it or not.

But don’t worry if you decide – this won’t be the last time Agora Financial will line your pockets with dough…

Read on to cash your $6,503 check…

*************************************

The idea is to jump-start a large U.S. military-industrial CTL program that will eventually serve the rest of the economy. The CTL projects will cost over $5 billion each, based on preliminary estimates. In other words, each CTL refinery will cost about as much as an aircraft carrier, and use about as much steel and equipment.

This ambitious CTL project will have major implications for the future of the coal-mining industry, as well as many companies in the engineering, construction and capital equipment sectors.

Future Liquid Fuel Supplies — We’re Running Out of Time

CTL will surely generate controversy. I cannot begin to describe the visceral opposition to CTL projects from the usual suspects. The NIMBYs, the environmental lobbyists the “global warming” activists and many others will all fight against CTL with tooth and nail. You will hear glib arguments about how “If we just do this or that” (windmills, biofuels, conservation, etc.) we can avoid the need to build any CTL plants. As a nation, we should “do this or that” in any event. Really, we need to do everything. But we will also have to build the CTL plants. The opposition to CTL reflects how deeply the “Just say no” approach is hard-wired into our modern culture.

The U.S. could get away with avoiding major capital investments in energy projects when the dollar was strong and oil was cheap. (How else did we wind up importing two-thirds of our daily oil?) If the U.S. needed oil, we just waved dollars and the tankers showed up at the piers. But no more.

It is crystal clear that the U.S. no longer has long-term assured access to liquid fuels. I hope you got the memo. This reality is rapidly transforming into a supreme matter of national security. A U.S. CTL industry cannot come about too fast, in my view. The nation is not “running out of oil,” technically speaking. But not enough oil can cause just as much havoc as running out. And the national “adult supervision” sure knows that the U.S. is running out of time. Let’s look at the present and forecast the future.

Oil Output and Supply

First, let’s discuss the U.S. oil supply going forward. The U.S. presently consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day. This is a mix of domestic output (much coming in small quantities from several hundred thousand old stripper wells) and imports.

According to the most recent figures from the U.S. DOE, in January 2008, U.S. crude oil output was just over five million barrels per day, plus additional natural gas liquids. The balance of oil consumption comes from imports. (Also, the U.S. supply of transportation fuel is supplemented about 3-4% with ethanol that comes from distilling about half the U.S. corn crop. That is why your grocery bill is skyrocketing.)

*************************************

A Collaborator Countdown: The Four Horseman of the Oil Apocalypse

Find out who these four are and how knowing that will line your pockets with cash, while oil is set to shoot over $150 per barrel.

It’s all right here…

*************************************

But domestic volumes of oil output are depleting and declining inexorably. From the North Slope of Alaska to the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. output is just plain falling. There is very little good news, and even the good news is oft-times not so good.

New discoveries and new wells just cannot keep up with depletion of older oil fields. By 2025, U.S. daily oil output will be a fraction of its current level (probably down to about 2-3 million barrels per day), even with an aggressive program of drilling offshore and in Alaska — which is not happening, in any case.

Also by 2025, U.S. imports will almost certainly decline. The oil will not be available to buy and import from world markets. Not everyone agrees with this. In one fanciful projection from 2005, the U.S. DOE forecast that “Total U.S. gross petroleum imports are projected to increase in the reference case from 12.3 million barrels per day in 2003 to 20.2 million in 2025.” Maybe in somebody’s dreams, but my view is that this is one projection that will never come true.

“Inflation is a long-term problem because there is no long-term will to solve it,” Chief Executive Officer Michael Geoghegan said during an informal shareholders meeting in Hong Kong.

He went on to criticize central banks that have kept interest rates low in response to curtailed economic growth and weak housing markets. But due in part to low interest rates, inflation has escalated as costs for food and energy soar, dampening consumer spending in such markets as the United States – and causing major food shortages in other markets around the world.

Geoghegan also said he expects that it will take three years for HSBC to return its U.S.-based consumer-lending unit to a profit. Its U.S. operations, acquired from Household International, was heavily exposed to the subprime-lending market and resulted in HSBC taking a $3.2 billion dollar write-down in the first quarter of 2008. That’s on top of a $4.6 billion dollar write-down in the fourth quarter last year.

Back in November 2006, HSBC was the first bank to acknowledge losses on subprime mortgages.

The world’s biggest banks have suffered about $383 billion in write-downs and credit losses since the subprime crisis began in earnest last year, and have raised about $270 billion to replenish capital, Bloomberg News reported today.

Over the weekend, UBS AG (UBS) – the Swiss banking giant seeking to raise $15.6 billion from shareholders to replenish a capital base eviscerated by such write-downs – revealed that it faces more losses from its mortgage-related holdings in both the global and U.S. markets, Bloomberg said.

In a prospectus for the rights offering that was posted on its corporate Web site, the Zurich-based UBS said it had losses on non-U.S. residential and commercial real- estate securities in 2007 and in the first quarter of this year and said those losses “could increase in the future,” the Bloomberg report stated.

In the United States, lending remains tight and home foreclosures are at a record high, as overextended homeowners are having difficulty obtaining favorable refinancing terms.

Almost two-thirds of U.S. banks have raised their lending standards for mortgages, even to their most creditworthy borrowers, Bloomberg reported. For those with limited or bad credit history – the so-called subprime borrowers – three-fourths of banks have raised lending requirements, according to a U.S. Federal Reserve survey of senior loan officers published May 5.

Lending also remains tight in the United Kingdom, where mortgage approvals continued to be low in April, the British Bankers’ Association announced today.

Home mortgage approvals increased to 38,704 in April from March’s historic low of 35,546, however, approvals remain below the 42,000 six-month average.

“March was the record low and April is the second lowest ever, so you cannot call that a recovery,” Michael Saunders at Citigroup Inc. (C) told Reuters.

Added Saunders: “The housing market remains extremely weak.”

A Changing Industry

Inflation isn’t the only problem facing the financial industry, according to the HSBC chief executive.

“The investment-banking model is flawed,” Geoghegan said. “If banks aren’t strong, they should be restructured or taken over.”

HSBC has been able to weather the subprime crisis better than some of its competitors due to its heavy focus on the Asian and emerging markets. The London-based lender has only had to dismiss 90 employees, or 0.1% of its total staff, as a result of the global credit crunch, according to Bloomberg-compiled data.

The European lending firm’s employee retention stands in stark contrast to The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. (BSC), which has had to let 66% of its employees go as it eliminated 9,160 jobs in the process of being acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM).

Traditional financial centers such as New York, London and Tokyo are shedding jobs, while up and coming cities like Dubai and Hong Kong continue to add to their financial ranks.

Credit Suisse Group (CS), Deutsche Bank AG (DB), Morgan Stanley (MS) and Citigroup have all relocated top rainmakers to Hong Kong as investment bankers look to cash in on the large number of sovereign wealth, private equity and corporate deals occurring in Asia.

China and the other emerging Asian economies haven’t been as adversely affected by the global credit crunch. While deals are slowing down in the United States and Europe, the pace of business is still fast and furious in the Pacific Rim.

“Investment bankers follow the money,” Scott Moeller, a professor at the Cass Business School and former executive with Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, told BBC News.

And even with the many job cuts and losses the financial industry has already suffered, some think the worst is still to come.

“We’ve never seen write-downs like we’re seeing now and such big losses,” John Challenger, chief executive officer of Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., told Bloomberg. “More job cuts will come. Even with the market’s optimism recently, I don’t think we can safely say that we’re out of the woods yet.”

Source: HSBC Chief Calls for Tougher Inflation Fight, Industry Changes

Now she’s back. And her outlook for the financial sector is actually worse. Whitney is now predicting that the banking-sector’s financial crisis will extend well into next year. If not beyond.

And that’s not even the bad news.

Whitney now says the worst may be yet to come. The banking-sector financial crisis will last at least until the end of next year, and may actually stretch well past that. And that could lead to a major U.S. downturn.

“We believe the credit crisis is far from over,” Whitney wrote in a research report last week. “In fact, we believe what lies ahead will be worse than what is behind us.”

The so-called “first wave” of the credit crisis hit banks’ trading books. But the second lightning strike will hit lenders where it hurts the most – right in their lending businesses. If she’s right, the impact on the economy will be devastating.

Here’s why. The banking system’s “originate-to-distribute” model changed the rules of the game. No longer did banks make loans that were based on very careful risk-of-loss analyses. Under the new system, banks make loans – such as subprime mortgages – which are then “securitized,” or packaged together, into debt instruments that the trading operations of banks, investment banks or institutional investors might then purchase, believing it was a way of achieving higher returns.

Initially, this led to higher profits. Which induced banks to boost lending so that they could boost securitizations. But here’s the problem. First, since the banks were no longer going to keep the loans, they relaxed lending standards. In fact, they actually had to since, second, they wanted to boost those volumes.

When the underlying loans unraveled as the subprime-mortgage crisis spiraled deeper and deeper out of control, companies such as The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. (BSC) took losses that just kept growing. Bear Stearns is now being taken over by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), with the help of the U.S. Federal Reserve.

The sins weren’t limited to banks, however. Consumers stoked this credit inferno – and, in doing so, unknowingly created their own funeral pyre.

Consumers grew accustomed to the “rolling loan gathers no loss” mindset, Whitney says. Housing values were soaring, and as long as those values continued to rise, homeowners could continue to roll over their loans into new borrowings – often packing in a lot of ancillary consumer debt from credit cards or car payments long the way.

When the housing market collapsed, however, homes were no longer a real-estate-version of an automated teller machine (ATM) that consumers could turn to each time they needed to eradicate debt from car loans, home loans or even credit-card debt.

When banks stopped lending, consumers had nowhere to turn to roll over their loans. Making matters worse were two other factors:

• First, many of their loans had so-called “re-set” provisions that permitted the loans to reset at much higher interest rates – a fact that caused the overall monthly mortgage payments to increase, sometimes by as much as 40% or more. And since their incomes weren’t rising in kind, many consumers could no longer make these payments, and defaulted on their mortgages.
• Second, the downturn in the housing market sent home prices into a severe tailspin, in some cases leaving homeowners with mortgage balances that were much larger than the new (lower) market value of their home. And if the mortgage loan also reset, that homeowner was hit with a double-whammy blow – a boosted mortgage payment on a house whose value had plunged.

Those resets have caused foreclosures to soar, the news is going to get lots worse, real estate data firm RealtyTrac Inc. said last month. Indeed, U.S. home foreclosures likely won’t peak until the fourth quarter, Money Morning reported last month.

“What we’re really looking at is ongoing fallout from people overextending themselves to buy homes they couldn’t afford and using highly toxic loan products to get into the houses in the first place,” Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac’s vice president of marketing, told The Associated Press. “We’re going to see quite possibly a record amount of foreclosure activity in the third or fourth quarter,” reflecting the spike in monthly payments because of the re-sets on adjustable-rate subprime mortgages that will take place in May and June.

And that brings us back to Whitney.

The banking sector’s lending pullback will fuel these losses and foreclosures, for many of the reasons we’ve detailed here. Already, banks will likely have to set aside an additional $170 billion in reserves through the end of 2008 – just to keep up with mounting loan losses.

To do that, banks will have to further rein in lending – to the tune of about $2 trillion worth of available credit lines, BusinessWeek.com reported.
For some context, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the entire U.S. economy is approaching $14 trillion. Two-thirds of that is driven by consumer spending.

That’s why the lending pullback is going to have a massive contractionary effect on the U.S. economy.

“New and unforeseen strains on consumer liquidity will push more consumers into precarious credit positions and cause consumer credit losses to be far worse than what is currently estimated, even by the most-draconian of investors,” Whitney wrote.

Source: Major Lending Pullback Predicted by Maverick Wall Street Analyst Could Have Dire Implications for U.S. Economy

Flush with British pounds at a 27-year high against the dollar, they poured something like $4.6bn into US real estate, according to data from the Association of International Property Professionals (AIPP).

Now the pound’s slipped back, but so too have Florida house prices. So cue Fannie Mae to target British holiday-makers.

“Homes Available in USA,” says a Google advert – visible only to web surfers inside the UK it would seem – from the US-government backed mortgage agency.

If you’re inside the fifty states, most likely you won’t find it. Which would only be tactful.

“Affordable housing opportunities,” says the ad. “Find a holiday home in America.”

There are plenty of “holiday homes” to choose from in the USA right now, not least on Fannie Mae’s books. Single family homes in Miami, Florida, for example, start at just $45,000. The last time a first-time buyer in Britain could snap up a starter home for that price – around £23,000 – was 1991.

Even then they had to buy far outside the “hot spots” of London and the South-East. At least 150 miles away, in fact. The last reported sighting of a London home costing less than $50,000 equivalent was back in 1985. Today the average apartment in the UK capital costs six times as much.

But hey, that’s inflation for you! And flicking through the huge range of cut-price real estate now on sale at Fannie Mae today, three things about the decade-long inflation in real estate prices now imploding on both sides of the Atlantic continue to amaze us here at BullionVault.

First, the sheer volume of foreclosures sweeping the former hot spots of America. Second, the size of house price “discounts” about to hit the United Kingdom. And third, how-in-the-hell anyone ever thought subprime mortgages sounded like a good idea.

As the chart above shows – courtesy of Janet Yellen of the San Francisco Federal Reserve – late payment rates on subprime US mortgages stayed above 9% even when the cost of borrowing sank to a four-decade low (and stayed there) between 2002 and 2005.

Teaser rates of just 1% interest, in other words, left almost one-in-ten subprime borrowers unable to meet their monthly mortgage bills. So the profits assumed by “resetting” those rates to 7% and above two years down the line were never going to show up.

As in not ever. Any bank day-dreaming otherwise deserves euthanasia, let alone bankruptcy.

What they’re getting instead, however, is a fresh dose of money from the Fed. The US central bank is actively creating a market in mortgage bonds, accepting these illiquid assets as collateral against loans of highly liquid US Treasury bonds.

Will the money thus released to the banks find its way back into US house prices? Whatever happens on your street in 2008, subprime lending as a financial product is dead – if not for good, then at least for now. Issuance of residential mortgage-backed bonds collapsed by 95% during the first three months of this year, according to data from SIFMA, the securities association. The futures market expects a further 25% drop in US house prices, notes Janet Yellen of the Fed, based off the price for Case-Shiller index contracts.

And now the UK property crash has finally turned up as well – a mere three years after everyone thought it would – the chances of British holiday-makers supporting the Florida real estate market look pretty slim too, despite Fannie Mae’s advertising dollars.

Source: Turning Sub-Prime Misery Into Vacation Homes

The bank said its annual subprime-related losses were more than 120 billion yen ($1.15 billion) and that it could lose another $480 million this year because of subprime exposure.

According to a report by Thomson Reuters, the bank’s president, Nobuo Kuroyanagi, said: “Subprime had a very broad effect on us. When you start talking about the related impact, the Japanese stock market has fallen a lot and that sparked losses on our stock portfolio.”

This from Thomson Reuters:

[Mitsubishi UFJ] has not been hurt as badly as Mizuho Financial on bets on risky U.S. subprime mortgages. Mizuho, Japan’s No.2 bank, lost 645 billion yen on subprime investments in the year to March, becoming one of Asia’s biggest subprime casualties.

But Mitsubishi UFJ has been dragged down by its consumer finance business after tighter government regulation squeezed profits, and is faced with sluggish lending growth and higher provisions against bad loans as Japan’s economy slows.

Future growth depends on MUFG’s ability to take advantage of opportunities overseas as Western banks, which have been hit much harder than Japanese banks by the credit crisis, become more cautious in extending loans, one investor said.

The loose bilateral trade association between China and Japan could be a major boost to the Japanese economy, which could become part of the world’s next superpower, says Martin Hutchinson in Money Morning.

“Free trade and free movement of labor between the two countries would enable them to deepen their economic relationship still further, making the Japan-China trade axis the most important in the world.

“Longer-term, an EU-style economic union could become the world’s leading economic power, surpassing even the United States and the EU itself. As a U.S. geo-strategist, one worries somewhat about this … As an investor, one rejoices in it and seeks to find sources of future profit from the two countries’ deepening relationship.

Read on here to find out how to profit from this geopolitical development.