Barclays

Just as we noted here, the analyst estimates for the potential impact of Libor (litigation and regulatory) liabilities have begun. Morgan Stanley sees up to a 17% hit to 2012 EPS (from $420 to $847 million per bank) in a worst case from just regulatory costs, and a further 6.8% potential hit to 2013 EPS if the top-down $400 million average per banks losses from litigation are taken on one year (considerably more if the bottom-up numbers of more than $1 billion are included). They see LIBOR risk in three parts: regulatory fines (we est median 7-12% hit to ‘12 EPS; litigation risk (7% EPS hit over 2 yrs); and less certainty on forward earnings. There are a plethora of assumptions - as one would expect - but the ranges of potential regulatory fine and litigation risk are very large though the MS analysts make the greater point that the LIBOR 'fixing' broadens investor support for more transparency in fixed income trading in addition to fixed income clearing leaving the threat of thinner margins as another investor concern.

Today's AM fix was USD 1565.50, EUR 1281.10 and GBP 1011.96 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1576.50, EUR 1284 and GBP 1012.91 per ounce.

Gold rose by 0.5% in New York yesterday and closed up $8.20 to $1,576.60/oz. Silver rose 0.93% or 25 cents to close at $27.09/oz.

Gold gradually ticked lower in Asian trading and has seen further slight weakness in European trading. Still robust physical demand is supporting gold at these levels and strong support is at the $1,500/oz level. 

Because I pay attention to these things; I have the sense that there has been a lot of praying recently. Prayers for QE3, prayers for Quantitative Easing mortgage bond buying, “Please SIR;” and for words to the effect in each and every FOMC minutes that “Money will be printed forever and ever Amen.”

“Now I know I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!”

                          -Homer Simpson

Now I hate to do this to you and I feel like the bad boy with the pin about to prick someone’s bubble but these prayers have gone unanswered as you know and are not likely to be answered any day soon unless Europe goes up in pixie dust which, while certainly possible, will be far more serious for the markets and will more than offset the Fed dragging out their printing presses and plugging them in once again.

The second Barclays announced its $450 million Libor settlement, it was all over - the lawyers smelled not only blood, but what may be the biggest plaintiff feeding frenzy of all time. Which is why it was only a matter of time: "State attorneys general are jumping into the widening scandal over whether banks tried to manipulate benchmark international lending rates, a move that could open a new front against the top global banks. A handful of state attorneys general said they are looking into whether they have jurisdiction over the banks, and are starting preliminary discussions to determine what kind of impact the conduct involving the Libor rate may have had in their states."

It appears that while some will argue that all is well and all we need are some animal spirits to bring us out of the doldrums, it would appear that governments and central banks disagree. Having recently discussed Argentina's forced bank-lending (and of course the BoE's wink at Barclays), we now hear a German think-tank (DIW) is strawman-ing an idea to force the wealthy to buy government debt (or lend "transfer" up to 10 per cent of their net worth). As the Germans come under more and more pressure to save their friendly neighbors the compulsory loans from anyone with a net worth above EUR250k would provide around 9% of annual GDP (or EUR230 billion) that could be mobilized to support the Euro-rescue efforts. As FAZ, Handelsblatt, and Die Welt note, this is not being well-received as the ZEW (Center For European Economic Research) reacted critically that this "would be a huge intrusion into property rights, and probably not possible under German law" running the major risk that "with enforcement action it will probably not be able to regain market confidence," and while a similar system had been installed after the Great Depression in the 1920s (as well as after WW2), these previous loans encumbered real estate properties and not directly to cash.

We discussed this three months ago (not as policy recommendations but as expectations that all wealth will be extracted to prevent what 'they' think is pending social collapse), and while it will not be popular, it seems either directly through this route or indirectly through banking repression, the forced financial tax that we wrote of back in September is exactly what is occurring - as there are only painful ways out of this miasma.

Federal Reserve REWARDS Fraud By Throwing Money At Criminal Manipulators

We believe that we are in the early stages of what will happen with LIBOR.  As we wrote yesterday, we believe there are two distinct phases the pre-crisis phase which saw potential manipulation of small amounts in both directions, and the crisis phase where LIBOR was allegedly much lower than the rate at which banks would realistically lend to each other.  Much of this is supported by the FSA case against Barclays. If lawsuits start, banks have a few hopes, including "The 'central bank' made me do it" but banks will have to do everything they can to prevent being sued by 3rd parties.  If they cannot prevent that, this could get very ugly in a hurry for some banks.

A lack of transparency, a lack of enforcement of law and a compliant media which failed to ask the hard questions and do basic investigative journalism led to the price fixing continuing and the manipulation continuing unchecked on such a wide scale for so long - until it was exposed recently. Similarly, the gold market has the appearance of a market that is a victim of “financial repression”. Given the degree of risk in the world – it is arguable that gold prices should have surged in recent months and should be at much higher levels today. The gold market has all the hallmarks of Libor manipulation but as usual all evidence is ignored until official sources acknowlege the truth. However, like LIBOR the gold manipulation 'conspiracy theory' is likely to soon become conspiracy fact.  It will then – belatedly - become accepted wisdom among 'experts.'  Experts who had never acknowledged it, failed to research and comment on it or had simply dismissed it as a “goldbug accusation.”  Financial repression means that most markets are manipulated today - especially bond and foreign exchange markets.

• San Bernadino: Another Calif. city goes bankrupt (247)... It appears Hell's Angels don't pay municipal taxes after all
• Rajoy announces 65 Billion Euros Of Cuts To Fight Crisis (Bloomberg)... And Spaniards prepare to not pay taxes
• Spain pressed to inflict losses on savers (FT)... And Spaniards prepare to sue
• Spain to Cede Bank Control (WSJ)... And Spaniards prepare to protest
• Rate Scandal Stirs Scramble for Damages (NYT)... but who do you sue: the Fed?
• Paulson Ex-Lieutenant Caught in Fund's Slide (WSJ)
• ILO warns 4.5m jobs at risk in eurozone (FT)
• Global economic crunch confirmed every day: Airbus Scraps Target of 30 A380 Sales as Demand Dwindles (BBG)
• Same old: Finland says requires collateral from Spain for bank aid (Reuters)
• Cameron and Hollande clash on tax (FT)
• Wen Says Boosting Investment Now Key to Stabilizing China Growth (Bloomberg)

Digging into the details of US and UK Liebor duing the crisis period is stirring both bad memories and some very clear disclocations from reality. While we noted many of these at the time, they seem even more egregious now and as Peter Tchir of TF Market Advisors notes, outliers seem to be Citi, RBS, and to a less extent UBS. Our perception was that RBS was viewed as a worse credit than Barclay’s. CDS seems to confirm that, yet they are posting LIBOR significantly tighter. UBS always seemed to have some decent government support, so while maybe a stretch that they were quoting LIBOR close to JPM and DB, it isn’t totally unreasonable. DB if anything looks conservative relative to other prices. Citi just seems ridiculous. The CDS market was trading it as the worst of the credits, yet here they are with the best LIBOR. That looks consistent throughout the entire the period. Maybe there is something we're missing and just don’t remember, but it does seem surprising that Citi thought they could fund at the same level as JPM at the time in the unsecured interbank market. At this point it is all just speculation where the information Barclay’s has provided the FSA leads, but so many people have been talking about LIBOR so long, that we would be shocked if it ends at Barclay’s and there is enough data, in our mind, to warrant some much deeper investigation.

It's early, but as we pointed out yesterday in our Q2 earnings preview, the background noise is starting to grow louder. With near record levels of negative pre-announcements post the financial crisis (most recently AMD and Cummins), we are shocked (shocked we tell you) that analysts could have got it so wrong. Expectations for Q2 2012 EPS Growth have dropped from a Viagra-based 'its-always-better-two-quarters-out' view in August 2011 of +11% to -1.8% today. What is not surprising is the hope-filled 14% S&P 500 EPS growth rate expected for Q4 2012! With EURUSD down almost 11% from Q2 2011, we can only imagine the FX translation impacts that analysts are desperately trying to goal-seek into their forecasts - which we presume accounts for the surge in Q4 when Europe will be 'fixed'. With negative macro surprises so disconnected from equity market performance (and implicitly hope for earnings), it seems there is notable room for disappointment.

We have discussed at length the need for the equity market to be significantly lower in order for Bernanke to step in with his munificence. Critically, this is less about the absolute level of the S&P 500 (though anyone expecting the Fed chairman to step in with the S&P 500 within a few percent of multi-year highs is dreaming) but, as Barry Knapp from Barclays notes - based on Bernanke's writings - additional monetary stimulus is a function of a significant drop in inflation expectations (as opposed to a shallow drop in the S&P 500). It is the risk of deflation that will trigger a policy reaction. Current conditions are not even close to levels that have warranted additional stimulus in the past - which we estimate to be a 2% 5Y5Y forward inflation breakeven rate. In order for that level to be triggered - based on the post-crisis relationship between equities and inflation expectations - the S&P 500 trailing earnings yield would need to rise over 8.2% implying an S&P 500 level near 1200. Tracking inflation expectations is critical to any NEW QE hope - and for now, there is none on the horizon, no matter how much everyone clamors for it.

Last Tuesday we suggested that "Now The Fed Gets Dragged Into LiEborgate" when we observed that "Barclays also cited subsequent research by the New York Federal Reserve staff members that, according to the lender, concluded that banks’ Libor quotes were systematically below their borrowing rates by 39 basis points after the Lehman bankruptcy. “Barclays own submissions for tenors of 1 month to 1 year Libor were higher than actual Barclays trades on 97% of the occasions when Barclays had actual trades during the financial crisis,” the lender said." It seems that unlike the BOE, which had no idea of any Barclays problems and was merely calling up Diamond now and then to make sure the bank's money market risk mechanisms were operational and to chit chat about the weather (as per the BOE at least), the Fed has decided to take the high road and openly admit it was well aware of Barclays' LIBOR "problems." And like that the Senatorial circus just got exciting, while that popping noise is bottles of Bollinger going off at every class action lawsuit legal firm.

The debate around San Bernardino County’s proposed program to use eminent domain rights to seize ownership of underwater mortgages has continued to heat up since we first wrote about it here last week. As Barclays notes, the county (along with two other cities in the area) has formed a joint powers authority, which would not need permission from the respective city councils unless they need public money. There are conflicting reports of the path that such an authority would take and the role of private investors. However, the most likely path seems to be that the authority is funded by private investors and it uses this money to buy current loans that are underwater at a "fair price" and then refi the borrower into a new private or more likely into an FHA mortgage. So, this program, if implemented, is likely to be a transfer of wealth from existing investors in these loans to the city governments and the newer investors led by venture-capital firms. Barclays does note though that there are many challenges to such a program including the legal issue of whether eminent domain can be used to seize financial assets in this fashion, especially if the primary beneficiaries are private investors at the expense of existing investors, which include, among others, pension funds and mutual funds and the fact that new mortgage origination is likely to suffer with new mortgagees bearing the costs of such a program in the form of higher mortgage rates/less credit availability.

Who Are the Biggest Manipulators of All?