Archive - Feb 2, 2012

Yesterday we noted how a CBO analyst may have been terminated for her conflicting views on model assumptions, especially when they veered away from the Wall Street-defined norm. Today, we find that the same approach to dissent may have been the reason why MF Global ended up taking inordinate risk, and ultimately blowing up, leaving over a billion in client money transitioning from liquid to gas phase overnight. According to Reuters, "The former chief risk officer at MF Global who raised red flags about the firm's aggressive trading bets told lawmakers that his warnings contributed to the firm's decision to let him go in early 2011. Michael Roseman, who was ousted in January 2011 from the now-bankrupt futures brokerage, said he rang alarm bells about the firm's exposure to European sovereign debt a year before the firm collapsed in late October of 2011." Roseman's statement on whether his skepticism to Corzine's get rich quick scheme was the reason for his termination? ""My views on risk certainly played a factor in that decision," Roseman told a House Financial Services subcommittee, about why he was asked to leave the firm." And so the status quo continues: any time anyone ever dares to disagree with broad misconceptions, whether it is regarding infinitely rising home prices, broad global compression trades, or the ability of European banks to onboard toxic CDOs in perpetuity is always promptly shown the door. The flipside to this complete lack of checks and balances? Why the bailout culture of course, in which finding one company responsible for gross complacency would mean all are guilty. Which is nobody will ever go to prison as it would set the "worst" possible precedent ever: that one is ultimately responsible for their own stupidity. Said otherwise: the best qualification one can hope to add to one's resume: "distinguished yes man with honors."

With the IMF cutting its global growth forecasts and signs of slowing evident in the dramatic contraction in World Trade Volume in the last few months, it is perhaps no surprise that the central banks of the world have embarked upon what Goldman Sachs calls an 'Unprecedented Alignment of Monetary Policy Across Countries'. Our earlier discussion of the European event risk vs global growth expectations dilemma along with last night's comments on the impact of tightening lending standards around the world also confirms that this policy globalization is still going strong and is likely to continue as gaming out the situation (as Goldman has done) left optimal CB strategy as one-in-all-in with no benefit to any from migrating away from the equilibrium of 'we all print together'. Perhaps gold (and silver's) move today (and for the last few months) reflects this sad reality that all your fiat money are belong to us, as nominal prices rise (but underperform PMs) in equities (and risky sovereigns and financials).

Courtesy of Bloomberg, we have our first impression of what advertisers' "efficiency" is for Facebook ads, and whether or not they will decide to use Facebook as an ad medium as opposed to a legacy wholesale advertising channel's like Google AdSense. Frankly, it does not look too hot: as the attached chart shows, the CTR on an ad campaign is a paltry 0.014%, or said otherwise 182,901 page views leading to... 26 clicks. Now of course, the amount paid for this exposure will be modest (although at $2.80 CPC this is astronomical compared to the likes of adsense), however the real question is what advertiser, for whom reader engagement, i.e., click thrus are important, will wish to subject themselves to this abysmal level of "interaction." it is probably no secret that for Google adsense, CTR is at least one order of magnitude higher. This also explains why anyone betting on the advertising model as being the primary driver of revenue growth will likely be disappointed. Naturally, there is the possible offset that the ad campaign was merely not engaging, or not that exciting, or not proper user targeted, but that is what Face Book is doing after all - it is trying to replicate adsense interest matching. So if Facebook is about ten times worse than adsense, just who will use it? We agree with Mark Gimein's conclusion, "Whether you’re a giant advertiser or a tiny one, you know exactly how much value you get from a Google placement. For us, it was just really hard to know what we were getting from our Facebook ads."

One of the salient questions asked of Bernanke by Congress relates to a Kevin Warsh oped in the WSJ, in which he said the following: "Private investors are crowded out of the market when the Fed shows up as a large and powerful bidder. As a result, the administration and Congress make tax and spending decisions—with huge implications for our standard of living—with heightened risks around future funding costs." This is arguably the question that dominates Fed policy making under the Operation Twist doctrine, in which the Fed buys up long-dated paper and sells Short dated (under 3 years), the second leg of which however is completely irrelevant, as the Fed has already guaranteed ZIRP until 2014, in essence confirming that Twist was nothing but a stealth QE3 as we have claimed all along, as the Fed's ZIRP4EVA policy effectively offsets any and all short-dated sales. Needless to say Bernanke's response was irrelevant. However, here is the most jarring statistic. As Barclays showed a few days back, under Twist, the Fed has monetized virtually all, and specifically 91% of all gross issuance in the 20-30 year maturity bucket. In other words, Warsh is absolutely spot on, and once again we are left with an artificial market in which it is only the Fed that defines the UST curve shape by molding the long end. What happens when Twist ends? Will the 30 Year collapse? What happens when there is no explicit back stop to the long end? Is this the reason why Bill Gross yesterday said that he fully expects much more check writing by the Fed for the next '12, 24, 36 months." And how can it not: we don't have a market of rational players any more - the entire market is merely one irrational player, whose biggest counterparty incidentally, the ECB, is beyond broke. Finally, what happens to the Fed's balance sheet when interest rates start rising? Holding a portfolio with a duration greater than it has ever been, the DV01 is currently well over $2 billion (i.e. a $2 billion loss on every basis point increase in rates). And rising.

Let's compare three financial criminals. The first is an old-fashioned counterfeiter who doctors up paper and runs a printing press to produce fake currency. The second criminal borrows money based on a fraudulent asset and phantom future income. For example, the criminal might obtain a credit card based on false assets and income, or borrow money against a property that is worth far less than he claims and base his credit on an inflated fantasy income he does not actually receive. The third criminal borrows money from the Federal Reserve at zero interest and extends a loan to a fraudulent borrower because a government agency has guaranteed the loan. Whatever income the lender receives is pure gravy, and whatever losses are incurred when the fraud is uncovered are made good by the taxpayer. Since our banking system is based on money being borrowed into existence (i.e. fractional reserve), then how is creating money unsecured by either assets or income any different from actually counterfeiting bills? The outcome is identical: money created out of thin air.

While we first presented Bill Dudley's financial disclosure two days ago, we did so to present the New York Fed's president, and former Goldman managing director's, implicit need to perpetuate the status quo from even purely personal wealth reasons (AIG and GE waiver issues aside). Yet that a Fed member, especially a Goldman alum, is deeply enmeshed within the fabric of the existing, and failing, monetary system is not all that surprising. What is far more surprising, is that the Fed's FOMC may well have a gold bug within its midst, because we were rather surprised to find that none other than the Dallas Fed's Dick Fisher, who however is no longer a voting Fed president in the 2012 year, is a proud owner of at least $1 million worth of Gold in the form of the GLD ETF....and another up to $250K in physical (not paper) platinum. Which begs the question: is Fisher the only Fed president to have seen the light and to put a substantial portion of his wealth in the only asset class that benefits in real terms, from the perpetuation of the Fed's dollar, and fiat broadly, debasement strategy?

Opus Dei to you douche bag!

Was the Chapter 11 Petition of MF Global Holdings filed fraudulently?

A week ago, we asked (rhetorically), whether "Bernanke Has Become A Gold Bug's Best Friend?" While we knew the answer, today's reponse by the market confirms it. Beginning just before 10 am, or the moment Ben's prepared remarks went off embargo, gold and silver have been on a relentless tear (chart 1), with Gold passing $1760/ounce and now just $150 from its all time nominal highs. And while risk is on elsewhere, stocks priced in gold are down 0.9% since their highs yesterday and at their lows in real terms (chart 2), even as they hit new nominal highs, confirming that fear of the coming monetary tsunami will benefit precious metals. So while the lemmings focus on meaningless nominal gains, their real purchasing power just lost another 1%. Thank you Chairsatan - you are a good man.

If you thought that the siren-call from the sell-side for more QE, more credit, and more monetization was merely lowest-common-denominator thinking on how to fix the Keynesian end-game, think again. As Morgan Stanley shows, it is much more about self-preservation (bonuses) as the extreme correlation of banker's relative pay to Debt/GDP clearly shows the reliance on the perpetuation of the credit super-cycle if 'lifestyles' are to be maintained. As MS notes, the rise of relative pay in the finance sector was highly correlated with the expansion in economy-wide leverage. A similar rise had occurred in the credit boom that culminated in the Great Depression. The deleveraging phase that followed that bust went hand-in-hand with declining relative compensation in finance, as the clearest beneficiaries of the credit super-cycle, credit providers (and implicitly their employees) clearly face the biggest structural problems in a deleveraging phase.

All you need to read.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke will testify at House Budget Committee (Chairman Paul Ryan, R-WI) full committee hearing on "The State of the U.S. Economy." The highlight of today's hearing will be watching Bernanke face his nemesis runner up, Paul Ryan, who will surely grill Blackhawk Ben with questions that are far more intelligent than the press corps could come up with during the last FOMC canned remark presentation. Watch the full testimony live at C-Span after the jump.

With IPO hype blowing like a maxed-out hairdryer into my face, I Googled ... Friendster

Following the LTRO and the recent spate of successful bond auctions (until today's tailing Spanish issues that is) European liquidity was supposed to be fixed, with 3M Libor dropping for weeks in a row, right? So perhaps someone can explain to us why the ECB's FX swaps with the New York Fed (reported by the European central bank 9 days in advance of confirmation by the Fed) just rose to a post-crisis flare up high of $89.3 billion, up from last week's $84.5 billion (the increase a function of new 7 and 84 Day swaps, each getting 10 and 17 participating banks, respectively), more than any other time in 2011, 2011, when the liquidity crisis was rampaging, and in fact the highest since July 2009. So: what is fixed again?