Fail

So the EC wants the ECB to bypass the EFSF and use the ESM to recap EU banks?  That was the rumor that shifted global stock markets by 1% in a matter of minutes? It has been awhile see we looked at the EFSF Flowchart or had a detailed look at the EFSF Guidelines but it looks like it is time to dig a bit deeper into what is possible and what is not. The ESM is not yet up and running.  There was talk that it would be done by June or July of this year, but in typical EU fashion I don’t think much progress has been made towards that promise.  So right now the EU is stuck with EFSF and the potential to set up the ESM. The market got carried away with the promise of LTRO as a sovereign debt savior, instead it created a potential death spiral. Spanish and Italian bonds are definitely getting crushed today, but with Spanish 10 years above 6.5% and Italian 10 year bonds nearing 6%, the potential for intervention rises.  The secondary market is affecting the primary market, which is driving up the cost of funds, creating more pressure on the budget deficits.  The countries are painfully aware of that, as is the ECB. 

First the ECB kicked the stimulus junkies in the crotch in the after hours session, now the PBOC is about to eat their faces for breakfast as both rumors causing overnight and intraday stock ramps are systematically denied. From Bloomberg: "China has no plan to introduce stimulus measures to support growth on the scale unleashed during the depths of the global credit crisis in 2008 according to the nation’s state-run Xinhua News Agency. “The Chinese government’s intention is very clear: It will not roll out another massive stimulus plan to seek high economic growth,” Xinhua said yesterday in the seventh paragraph of a Chinese-language article on economic policy, without attributing the information. “The current efforts for stabilizing growth will not repeat the old way of three years ago." And with that the rug is pulled out from below anyone praying for non-Fed stimulus.

Exit from the Euro would be very painful for Greece. Cut off from the ECB’s liquidity facilities, the Greek banking system would face collapse. And, as foreign lenders cut their credit lines to Greece and depositors struggled to extract their deposits ahead of the banks’ failure, the Greek financial system – and with it the Greek economy – would seize up. Given the costs of exit for both Greece and other Euro area countries, a powerful incentive exists for the two parties to reach a compromise that permits continued Greek membership of the Euro area but in the meantime the pan-European game of chicken continues and with each iteration of this game, the political cost to the two parties involved has increased. Goldman sees three key scenarios from this: Muddle Through (this is their 'Goldilocks' base case and implies continued Greek EMU membership, and ECB funding for Greek banks, but also continued pressure on Greece to reluctantly implement reforms while at the same time the remaining Eurozone countries very gradually deepen their policy integration) - which is modestly positive (though likely more range-bound) for equities and bonds with weak growth and Fed QE3 potentially pushing EURUSD up to 1.40; a Fast Exit (the least likely and most bearish scenario with Greece walking away unilaterally potentially knocking 2 percentage points of Euro-area GDP - even assuming substantial central bank counter-measures - and if the firewall were ineffective, a Euro-unraveling and an associated double-digit fall in Euro-area GDP); and a Slow Exit (Greece excluded once firewalls are in place - with pan-European deposit guarantees now front-and-center as opposed to simple banking bailouts to avoid the now-critical bank-run's contagion - which constitutes modest GDP impacts and compression in risk premia - and appears to what the market is discounting as likely). Simply put CB counter-measures are assumed to save any dramatic downside unless Greece surprises unilaterally.

We all know that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve contained a now-struck-down provision to authorise the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil. But did you know that the NDAA also paves the way for war with Iran? From Dennis Kucinich:

Section (6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Section (7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment. This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy and would guarantee that talks with Iran, currently scheduled for May 23, would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,” a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. This language makes such a negotiated solution impossible. At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons “capability” could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.

The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree  that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one.

All you need to read.

For all its rhetoric, the current situation in the Eurozone should be very familiar to most Americans: after all it is merely a Federalist organization just missing one key feature: Federalism. At least for now. Whether Europe will succeed in reversing 20 centuries of nationalist pride, a multitude of languages, religions, cultures, histories, and superficial solidarity and friendliness covering generations of broad-based enmity, blood feuds and hatred, which is precisely what will be required (because the monetary union was merely half of the game) remains to be seen. It is likely that the stock market will force this resolution sooner than most expect. Then the question becomes: will Europe truly become the United States of Europe. And if so, what would the current Greek travails look like if they were transplanted to the state of California: another place which may soon be in dire need of a bailout. Luckily Jefferies' David Zervos has performed just the thought experiment: "let's assume the European monetary system structure was in place in the US. And then imagine that a US "member state" were to head towards a bankruptcy or a restructuring of its debts - for example California." The results are below.

Mere hours after the annual European Eurovision song contest ended at a cost to the host country in the hundreds of millions, money which should have been spent productively elsewhere but wasn't while providing utterly unnecessary distraction to hundreds of millions from what is truly important, we get another stark reminder that the continent is not only broke, but that it no longer even pretends to have credible ideas about how to go about fixing itself. The latest speculation: "Secret plans are being drawn up in Brussels for a European rescue fund that could seize control of struggling banks across the Continent. The scheme, which would be funded by a levy on banks, will be presented by supporters as a "silver bullet" that could halt the steady escalation of the eurozone debt crisis. It is being worked on in tandem with a proposal from Mario Monti, the Italian prime minister, for a Europe-wide guarantee on bank deposits. The proposal would throw the financial muscle of Europe's stronger nations, and healthy financial institutions, behind weaker countries and lenders. Proponents, including top advisers to the European Commission, say the removal of the threat of bank collapses would restore market confidence in Italy and Spain." In other words, last week's rumor that was supposed to be presented at the latest flop of a FinMin summit is once again being reincarnated as apparently nothing else in the European arsenal has any remaining credibility - and as a reminder, none other than unelected Monti's one-time employer Goldman Sachs said a eurowide deposit guarantee would not work.

Europe continues to fight the wrong battle, and continues to spread contagion risk. It is clear that Greece has had a solvency issue now for over 2 years.  The ECB and Troika chose to treat it as a liquidity problem.  Maybe, they could have argued that in early 2010, but by the summer of 2011 it was obvious to any credit observer that the problem was solvency, yet they continued to treat it as one of liquidity.  That is scary because if they fail to see the problem correctly now, they will fail miserably.  Not only is the problem clearly solvency, but now forced currency conversion has been added to the mix. Any "solution" from the EU must now address that risk, and it is not the same as solvency.  Programs that can protect against solvency may do nothing for the redenomination risk. We keep playing with scenarios and find it hard to find out where a Greek exit doesn't result in a steep sharp decline in the market.  We could go through more ideas of ECB intervention, but in the end most will have flaws.  Dealing with currency conversion risk is huge.  Dealing with the contagion risk that has been created by the EFSF is huge. Will Europe force Greece out thinking they have a plan; that fails miserably and sparks the miserable series of consequences we’ve outlined?  Sadly, yes.

… Which Will Lead to Bailouts and Encourage Even More Fraud

Recall when Zero Hedge said two weeks ago that in the age of ZIRP, corporate balance sheets simply do not matter. The reason for that conclusion were of course the endless public debates over whether Chesapeake's massively overlevered capital structure would lead to its demise. Our view was that while balance sheets certainly matter in a normal market, one not dominated by central planning and endless hunger for yield, in the new ZIRP normal, none of the old school metrics of solvency, viability or even profitability matter. One person who appears to have agreed with our assessment, and put his money where his mouth is, or $775MM more specifically, is none other than legendary corporate raider Carl Icahn, who minutes ago announced that funds controlled by Icahn have raised their stake in CHK to 7.56%, making him the second biggest holder of the stock, and in a letter just sent to the CHK Board, in rather angry tones, demanded 2 board seats for his own representatives and 2 for Chesapeake's largest shareholder Southeastern Asset Management. Below we chart just how it is that beginning on April 19 at a price of $18.03, Icahn's funds accumulated over a period of 18 days, a total of 49.4 million shares of stock at what appears to be a Volume Weighted Average Cost of $15.70/share, meaning that as of the stock spike on this announcement he is currently in the money.

Back when Dexia was nationalized in the fall of 2011, one of the running jokes was that it was the bank that had one of the highest grades in the European Stress Test conducted just months prior. Here is another joke: we now know that Spain's Bankia is the next major financial institution which is being nationalized, and whose bailout costs are literally growing by the hour. Was Bankia one of the Stress Test 2011 failures? Why of course not...  But 5 other Spanish banks were.

In celebration of the one-week anniversary of FaceBomb's ultimate #Fail, Bloomberg TV is reporting that Facebook's first week of trading is the worst large IPO performance in a decade (aside from the BATS debacle -which lasted nanoseconds and potentially never really IPO'd) - well played Margin Stanley, well played! And for those that like to see the spectacle in all its glory, NANEX has provided a graphical view of the chaos as FacePlant came and went last Friday...

All yu need to read.

This is the REAL DEAL for Europe. Anyone who has some kind of counter-argument to these points either doesn’t understand the political environment we’ve entered (even Central Banks are fed up with bowing to political pressure from politicians) or is simply hoping that by ignoring these realities they (the realities) will go away.

Bank Regulatory Capital has been in the news a lot recently - between the $1+ trillion Basel 3 shortfall, the Spanish banks with seemingly their own set of capital issues, or JPM's snafu.  There has been a lot of discussion about Too Big To Fail (“TBTF”) in the U.S. with regulators demanding more and banks fighting it.  After JPM's surprise loss this month, the debate over the proper regulatory framework and capital requirements will reach a fever pitch.  That is great, but maybe it is also time to step back and think about what capital is supposed to do, and with that as a guideline, think of rules that make sense. Specifically, regulatory capital, or capital adequacy, or just plain capital needs to address the worst of eventual loss and potential mark to market loss. Hedges are once again front and center.  The only "perfect" hedge is selling an asset. This "hedge" is also a trade.  The risk profile looks very different than having sold the loan and the capital should reflect that.