Morgan Stanley

It was nothing more than a footnote in the Morgan Stanley financials; a $3.4 billion pay-out by Italy to settle a derivatives contract made in 1994. Say goodbye to 50% of the tax hikes imposed by the Monti government because that is what was wiped out by this payment. It is also interesting to note that that Mario Draghi, currently President of the European Central Bank, was the Director-General of the Italian Treasury when this derivative was formulated. Then comes the bomb, only mentioned in a brief article yesterday on Bloomberg, and not noted anywhere in the Press this morning. Marco Rossi Doria, an undersecretary in Monti’s administration, tasked with responding to a parliamentary interrogation on derivatives, admitted that the Italian Treasury had $211 billion in "notional" exposure to derivatives, which is around eleven percent (11%) of Italy’s total GDP. This new exposure, coupled with the work I did a few days ago and noted in my commentary of March 17, now brings Italy’s actual debt to GDP ratio to a whopping 144.3%.

As the rumor (and denial) of the potential release of the SPR washed out Crude and Brent prices last week, only to recover within 24 hours, we wonder if this was all the bang for the buck that these kind of pre-announcements will get. With the majority of crude reserves based in the US and product reserves based in Europe and spare capacity falling as OPEC picks up production even as Iran backs off, Morgan Stanley notes that the maximum stocks drawdown of the SPR in month 1 could average 14.4mmb/d (10.4mmb/d  of crude and 4.0mmb/d of products) which is enough to mitigate flows passing through the Strait of Hormuz (according to the IEA). However with only 90 days of cover at these rates, it is hardly the 'solution' to even the briefest of geopolitical disruptions. This perhaps explains the price action of previous SPR announcements, which varies by crude benchmark, but holds prices lower for a maximum of two weeks. Most notably, the greatest price drops on the SPR announcement tend to occur in the first 2-3 days at which point the term structure starts to increase once again. Louisiana Light tends to be hit the most followed by Brent and then WTI but the rebound is just as aggressive and we wonder if last week's rumor was merely a strawman to see just what impact was possible (we dropped 2-3% or so) and recovered rapidly compared to the 4-5% drop in June during the Arab Spring release (which was the largest release in the last 20 years).

All you need to read.

Much has been made of the positive impact that seasonal adjustments have made to the crop of supposedly better than expected macro prints that remain anecdotal evidence of why the S&P 500 is trading above 1400 again. Unfortunately the pleasant after-glow of a time-series-based adjustment that has become increasingly unstable and hard to justify post-crisis is starting to fade. Morgan Stanley's Business Condition Index dropped a very significant 5 points in March to 51%. Just as pointed out here (in Bernanke's scariest chart) the seasonal factors are almost entirely responsible as the trend of recent data is just not meeting expectations (both in analyst and market perceptions). Under the surface, things are a little gloomier also as their Hiring Plans Index dropped for the first time in six months and the business conditions expectations plummeted 11 points to 57% in March. Given this (leading) data, is it any wonder MS believes QE3 is inevitable and imminent? Though as we have noted again and again, until the market starts to get the sad joke that unless market momentum chasers start to defect from the current strategy, we suspect the impact of QE3 (if it comes) will be far more muted (in stocks) than the previous acts of exuberance by the Fed (and their buddies) - as implicitly the cost of the much-higher-than-normal strike price of Bernanke's put means ever-increasing QE needs to counter underlying weakness/perception.

Deals from last week tell me that we are are again in a credit bubble.

One of the big stories of the week was that Morgan Stanley “reduced” its exposures to Italy by $3.4 billion mostly by unwinding some swaps they had on with Italy. Morgan Stanley booked profit of $600 million on the unwind. The timing couldn’t have been worse coming on the heels of the “Darth Vader” resignation at Goldman Sachs, attracting more attention to profits on derivatives trades was the last thing the investment banks need. Much of the outrage seems misplaced though. In this case, don’t blame Morgan Stanley, blame Italy, and be very afraid of what else Italy has done.

The Fed is not a “dealer” giving “hits” of monetary morphine to an “addict”… the Fed has permitted cancerous beliefs to spread throughout the financial system. And the end result is going to be the same as that of a patient who ignores cancer and simply acts as though everything is fine. That patient is now past the point of no return. There can be no return to health. Instead the system will eventually collapse and then be replaced by a new one.

Where does one even possibly start with this: from the WSJ: "Morgan Stanley’s CEO James Gorman this morning criticized an op-ed written by a former Goldman Sachs Group employee, saying “I didn’t think it was fair.” Gorman, at a breakfast sponsored by Fortune Magazine in New York, said that he told the operating committee of his New York firm, not to try to take advantage of the criticisms of Goldman in the op-ed, which described a toxic culture in which profits come before client service."...“I don’t really care what one employee said,” said Gorman, who became CEO of Morgan Stanley at the beginning of 2010. “At any point, someone is unhappy… To pick a random employee, I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think its balanced.” That's funny - Gorman is only the second CEO after Jamie Dimon to "not take advantage of the criticisms" and we wonder why? Could it have something to do with the fact that every single bank is in the same position, and both Dimon and Gorman know very they are both just one disgruntled employee away from having the truth about their own sinking ships exposed to the world? Could it also be that both of them also realize that with Wall Street compensation packages now effectively downshifted for good, that the incidence of precisely such "whistleblowing" Op-Eds will soar astronomically? Finally, could Mr. Gorman perhaps comment on the allegations of yet another whistleblower who emerged right here on Zero Hedge, who alleges that it was none other than Morgan Stanley who influenced the CBO in its "conclusions" over the implications of the robosigning scandal? We would be delighted in posting Mr. Gorman's view. Alternatively, we would be just as delighted in posting the views of his employees, whether happy or unhappy. Or at least those employees who are not fired in retribution for emailing Zero Hedge... wink wink Morgan Stanely - and now you know that we know that you know that we know.

I applaud Smith's decision to bring the nature of Goldman's profit-making strategies to the forefront of the global population's discourse, as so many others have been doing through books, investigative journalism, and the Occupy movements over the past decade since my book, Other People's Money, was written after I resigned from Goldman. It would be great if Smith's illuminations would serve as the turning point around which serious examination and re-regulation of the banking system framework would transpire.

Yet another whistleblower has stepped up, this time one already known to the general public, and one that Zero Hedge covered just over a month ago: we refer to the case of former CBO worker, Lan T. Pham, who, as the WSJ described in early February, "alleges she was terminated [by the CBO] after 2½ months for sharing pessimistic outlooks for the banking and housing sectors in 2010" and who "alleges supervisors stifled opinions that contradicted economic fixes endorsed by some on Wall Street, including research from a Morgan Stanley economist who served as a CBO adviser." As we observed in February, "what is most troubling is if indeed the CBO is nothing but merely another front for Wall Street to work its propaganda magic on the administration. Because at the core of every policy are numbers, usually with dollar signs in front of them, numbers which have to make sense and have to be projected into the future, no matter how grossly laughable the resultant hockeystick." As it turns out, somewhat expectedly, the WSJ version of events was incomplete. There is much more to this very important story, one which has major implications over "impartial" policy decisionmaking, and as a result, Ms. Pham has approached Zero Hedge to share her full story with the public.

All you need to read.

UPDATE: The UK outlook change has had little reaction so far: TSY yield down 1-2bps, gold/silver bounced up a little, and a small drop in GBP.

While most of the talk will be about the drop in precious metals today, the sell-off in Treasuries is of a much larger relative magnitude and yet equities broadly ignored this re-risking 'signal'. At almost 2.5 standard deviations, today's 10Y rate jump (closing it above the 200DMA for the first time in eight months) trumps the 1.3 standard deviation drop in Gold prices - taking prices back to mid-January levels. According to our data (h/t JL) for only the 14th time in the last five years (and not seen for 16 months) Treasury yields rose significantly and stocks fell as the broad gains in yesterday's financials (on the JPM rip) were held on to at the ETF level but not for Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, or Citigroup (who gave all the knee-jerk reaction back). Tech led the way as AAPL surged once again (though faltered a few times intraday) having now completed back-to-back unfilled gap-up-openings. Credit and equity were generally in sync until mid afternoon when the up-in-quality rotation took over and stocks and high-yield sold off (notably HYG - the high-yield bond ETF underperformed all day long) while investment grade credit rallied to multi-month tights. VIX bounced higher (notably more than the S&P would have implied) recovering to Monday's closing levels and back above 15%. The Treasury sell-off was 'balanced' in terms of risk-on/-off by the strength in the USD (and modest weakness in FX carry pairs as JPY's weakness was largely in sync with the rest of the majors - hinting its was a USD story). Oil and Copper both lost ground (as did Silver - the most on the day) though they tracked more in line with USD strength than the PMs.

And the real lesson, dear friends, is that the good old USA is a subprime nation

"Rationalising away the imminent risk of inflation, the Fed leaves the door wide open for a QE3 announcement in April."

I will admit that having written extensively and aggressively about Wall Street’s self-regulator FINRA over the last three years, I did not think there was anything more I could see that would surprise me. Today I am surprised, shocked, and saddened. For those in our nation who have a semblance of decency and a desire to see due process reflected in legal hearings and financial arbitration, I believe you will be similarly dismayed. The case to which I will refer strikes deep into the core of Wall Street arbitration.  I hope you are sitting down and do not have any sharp objects nearby as Dow Jones’ Al Lewis provides a scathing expose of a FINRA arbitration entitled Broker Bankrupted in Kangaroo Court,