Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Tale of Two Economies...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TBTF Rumble

    Deutsche Bank’s $7 Billion Loss Is Just the Beginning of Wall Street Woes


    By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: October 8, 2015


    Our email inbox yesterday and this morning raised more alarm bells for the mega banks – you know the ones we mean; the ones that should have been broken up before we were on the cusp of the next downturn. Here’s a quick rundown before we get into the details:

    • Deutsche Bank announced it will take an approximate $7 billion writedown in the third quarter and potentially eliminate its dividend;
    • Charles Schwab is out with a report on the potential for deflation and what it could do to corporate earnings;
    • The Treasury’s Office of Financial Research released a report on big bank liquidity concerns;
    • Bank of America released a report on the $100 billion exposure that the troubled commodities firm, Glencore, poses to global financial institutions;
    • Bloomberg Business is reporting on the anticipated revenues downturn when big U.S. banks begin to report third-quarter earnings next week.


    Let’s start off with the Deutsche Bank writedown. That’s a monster amount: $7 billion exceeds JPMorgan’s London Whale fiasco of $6.2 billion. To put things in perspective, as of yesterday’s close, Deutsche Bank has a market cap (value of all of its shares outstanding) of $39.7 billion versus JPMorgan’s market cap of $229.7 billion. That pretty much tells you that Deutsche will, indeed, have no choice but to eliminate its dividend.

    Deutsche Bank’s kitchen sink writedown announcement was big on numbers and light on specifics. Here’s how it described the biggest chunk of the writedown:
    “An impairment of all goodwill and certain intangibles in Corporate Banking & Securities (CB&S) and Private & Business Clients (PBC) of approximately EUR 5.8 billion. This is largely driven by the impact of expected higher regulatory capital requirements on the measurement of the value of these segments as well as current expectations regarding the disposal of Postbank.”

    There are clearly some ugly details in those “securities” and “business clients” that Deutsche would like to gloss over. There also appears to be more fines and settlements over misdeeds coming: Deutsche says it will take “litigation provisions” approximating $1.35 billion and that “final litigation provisions in the quarter may be affected by further events before we finalize and report third quarter results.” The bank makes its formal third quarter earnings announcement on October 29.

    Schwab’s epistle on deflation came with the headline: “Deflation: What Investors Need to Know.” After quickly asserting that they think it is “unlikely” to happen here in the U.S., the author, Michelle Gibley, proceeds to list a dozen horrors that would likely accompany deflation – just in case she is wrong and it does happen here. (We believe deflation is imminently possible given the level of wealth inequality in the U.S.) Among the horrors noted by Gibley: “If consumers and businesses believe prices and demand in the future will be lower, they may postpone spending and investment decisions, creating a downward spiral of economic contraction.”

    Gibley also notes that “businesses may start to compete on price due to the dual problems of excess capacity and insufficient demand” and that “borrowers also are hurt” because “incomes shrink but debts don’t.” As we have regularly noted, there is also the horror that the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, has no bullets left in its interest rate gun to fight deflation – having been at the zero bound range since December 2008.

    The Office of Financial Research released a paper yesterday worrying about whether banks would actually have enough liquidity to meet a run on deposits. Should we still need to be asking that question seven long years after the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression?

    Glencore’s problems strongly suggest that we will be hearing more about bank or hedge fund losses tied to this commodities behemoth before this cycle ends in the same kind of hubris as the last one – with regulators rolling out the same nonsense that no one could have seen it coming.

    And, finally, all of this is hitting the fan when corporate earnings and revenues are slumping on the back of a strong dollar that has crimped export profits and a slowdown in investment banking activity on Wall Street. As this Bloomberg Business report notes, revenue gains for the big Wall Street banks in the third quarter were “probably toast.” We’ll hear more details next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday when the major banks report their third quarter results. On deck first is JPMorgan Chase next Tuesday.

    Comment


    • Re: TBTF Rumble

      Credit Suisse Said to Weigh Stock Sale of Up to $8.3 Billion

      Jeffrey Voegeli
      Ruth David
      Bloomberg

      Credit Suisse Group AG Chief Executive Officer Tidjane Thiam is considering selling stock in an offering that may raise 6 billion Swiss francs ($6.2 billion) to 8 billion francs, people with knowledge of the discussions said.

      The bank plans to proceed with the sale after presenting a new strategy to investors later this month, said one person, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private. The company hasn’t made a final decision on the amount, the people said.

      Thiam, 53, who took over from Brady Dougan in July, will present a strategy update on Oct. 21. He is under pressure to raise capital as Swiss regulators are looking to toughen requirements designed to shield the system from future financial crises. Thiam has said he plans to allocate more resources to wealth management and strengthen the bank’s position in Asia, while scaling back the investment bank, mirroring an approach of UBS Group AG.

      Investors surveyed by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on average estimated the bank will raise about 5.4 billion francs, according to a note from Oct. 1. Tougher capital requirements, litigation costs and the future direction of the company will all help determine the extent of any capital increase, UBS analysts Daniele Brupbacher and Mate Nemes said in a note on Friday.

      Credit Suisse closed at 23.78 francs in Zurich, up 0.9 percent, after earlier rising as much as 2.6 percent. The shares dropped 3.6 percent on Thursday after the Financial Times reported that the lender is preparing a “substantial” share sale.

      “We are conducting a thorough assessment of Credit Suisse’s strategy, evaluating all options for the group, its businesses and its capital usage and requirements,” the bank said in a statement late Thursday. Tobias Plangg, a Zurich-based spokesman for Credit Suisse, declined to comment beyond the statement.




      Comment


      • Re: TBTF Rumble

        Guebert: Free trade’s cheap talk is big money

        20 HOURS AGO • ALAN GUEBERT

        Most U.S. farm and commodity groups aren’t clear on the exact elements of the just agreed-upon Trans-Pacific Partnership. That lack of understanding, though, hasn’t stopped any from praising this “new, high-standard trade agreement that levels the playing field for American workers and American businesses.”

        For example, our good friends at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association say the TPP “will immediately reduce tariffs and level the playing field for U.S. beef exports to these growing markets.”

        It can’t come too soon for American cowboys because recent free trade deals — NAFTA (Canada and Mexico); KORUS (South Korea); and CAFTA (Central America) — are flooding the U.S in beef.

        In fact, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows U.S. beef imports for January through July 2015 are nearly 33 percent higher than the same period in 2014: 2.16 billion pounds now versus 1.6 billion pounds then.

        Moreover, U.S. beef imports from our new TPP partners over the same period show Australia beef up 55 percent, New Zealand up 15 percent, Canada up 2 percent, Mexico up 39 percent, Japan up 108 percent, Argentina up 46 percent and Chile up 145,579 percent.

        Those revealing numbers, however, didn’t stop the NCBA’s Sunshine Boys from proclaiming that “With the completion of this [TPP] work, NCBA looks forward to increased demand and growth for beef exports across the Pacific Rim” because “(b)eef exports currently add over $350 to each head of cattle sold in the U.S.”

        Even if accurate, that highly debatable number still won’t cover today’s nearly $500 per-head losses in slaughter cattle, most of which is tied to soaring beef imports, too-high retail beef prices, and a strong dollar.

        Relief will be a long time coming under TPP because, as Bloomberg News reported Oct. 6, the richest “Pacific Rim” target, Japan, will see its “tariffs on beef… cut to 9 percent over 16 years from 38.5 percent.”

        Really, a 1.84 percent tariff drop per year for 16 years? That’s a slap in the face, not a cut in tariffs.

        These easy-to-find challenges to NCBA’s silly Trans-Pacific cheerleading point to several underlying myths at the heart of Big Ag’s rock-ribbed belief that free trade is the past, current, and future salvation of American farms and ranches.

        One myth is that all U.S. farm and ranch profits are tied directly to free trade. The Obama White House made that connection again Oct. 5 when it noted “roughly 20 percent of all farm income in the United States,” is “provided” by “exports.”

        True, but farm income is not farm profit. If it were, U.S. net farm income would have risen when ag exports rose from $141 billion in 2013 to $152 billion in 2014. Instead, U.S. net farm income fell from $135 billion to $126 billion in that period.



        Another myth about free trade is that trade agreements are about freedom to export. In truth, most trade deals “specify who will be protected from international competition and who will not,” explains the Economic Policy Institute in its overview of the TPP.

        Clear evidence comes from America’s giant neighbor, Canada, whose ag minister announced his dairy and poultry farmers will be compensated for “any losses” caused by TPP before the deal was even signed. It confirms Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’s long-held belief that free trade deals are “managed trade agreements, tailored for corporate interests…”

        American farmers and ranchers know this in their bones but not their hearts. They are farmers and ranchers, not exporters. Big Agbiz — Cargill, JBS, Smithfield, ADM and the like — are global buyers and sellers who, when able to play both sides of any trade-leveled playing field the world over, rarely lose.

        Maybe that’s why the Big Boys aren’t saying squat about the TPP; they got everything they demanded during negotiations. Now they want you to pressure Congress to pass it for them and their shareholders.

        In fact, they’re betting on it and, already, their bets are paying off.

        Comment


        • Re: TBTF Rumble

          Originally posted by don View Post
          Guebert: Free trade’s cheap talk is big money

          20 HOURS AGO • ALAN GUEBERT

          Most U.S. farm and commodity groups aren’t clear on the exact elements of the just agreed-upon Trans-Pacific Partnership. That lack of understanding, though, hasn’t stopped any from praising this “new, high-standard trade agreement that levels the playing field for American workers and American businesses.”

          For example, our good friends at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association say the TPP “will immediately reduce tariffs and level the playing field for U.S. beef exports to these growing markets.”

          It can’t come too soon for American cowboys because recent free trade deals — NAFTA (Canada and Mexico); KORUS (South Korea); and CAFTA (Central America) — are flooding the U.S in beef.

          In fact, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows U.S. beef imports for January through July 2015 are nearly 33 percent higher than the same period in 2014: 2.16 billion pounds now versus 1.6 billion pounds then.

          Moreover, U.S. beef imports from our new TPP partners over the same period show Australia beef up 55 percent, New Zealand up 15 percent, Canada up 2 percent, Mexico up 39 percent, Japan up 108 percent, Argentina up 46 percent and Chile up 145,579 percent.

          Those revealing numbers, however, didn’t stop the NCBA’s Sunshine Boys from proclaiming that “With the completion of this [TPP] work, NCBA looks forward to increased demand and growth for beef exports across the Pacific Rim” because “(b)eef exports currently add over $350 to each head of cattle sold in the U.S.”

          Even if accurate, that highly debatable number still won’t cover today’s nearly $500 per-head losses in slaughter cattle, most of which is tied to soaring beef imports, too-high retail beef prices, and a strong dollar.

          Relief will be a long time coming under TPP because, as Bloomberg News reported Oct. 6, the richest “Pacific Rim” target, Japan, will see its “tariffs on beef… cut to 9 percent over 16 years from 38.5 percent.”

          Really, a 1.84 percent tariff drop per year for 16 years? That’s a slap in the face, not a cut in tariffs.

          These easy-to-find challenges to NCBA’s silly Trans-Pacific cheerleading point to several underlying myths at the heart of Big Ag’s rock-ribbed belief that free trade is the past, current, and future salvation of American farms and ranches.

          One myth is that all U.S. farm and ranch profits are tied directly to free trade. The Obama White House made that connection again Oct. 5 when it noted “roughly 20 percent of all farm income in the United States,” is “provided” by “exports.”

          True, but farm income is not farm profit. If it were, U.S. net farm income would have risen when ag exports rose from $141 billion in 2013 to $152 billion in 2014. Instead, U.S. net farm income fell from $135 billion to $126 billion in that period.



          Another myth about free trade is that trade agreements are about freedom to export. In truth, most trade deals “specify who will be protected from international competition and who will not,” explains the Economic Policy Institute in its overview of the TPP.

          Clear evidence comes from America’s giant neighbor, Canada, whose ag minister announced his dairy and poultry farmers will be compensated for “any losses” caused by TPP before the deal was even signed. It confirms Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’s long-held belief that free trade deals are “managed trade agreements, tailored for corporate interests…”

          American farmers and ranchers know this in their bones but not their hearts. They are farmers and ranchers, not exporters. Big Agbiz — Cargill, JBS, Smithfield, ADM and the like — are global buyers and sellers who, when able to play both sides of any trade-leveled playing field the world over, rarely lose.

          Maybe that’s why the Big Boys aren’t saying squat about the TPP; they got everything they demanded during negotiations. Now they want you to pressure Congress to pass it for them and their shareholders.

          In fact, they’re betting on it and, already, their bets are paying off.

          Appreciate some may find this comment impolite, but this author has his head up his azz.

          One chart should explain why:

          Commodity Breakdown and Volume (in US$ Billions) of Agricultural Exports by Nation

          Comment


          • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

            Well the Federal Election is over, and we seem to have a Canadian version of Barack Obama soon to lead the nation:




            Election results: Trudeau's victory speech praises hope, positivity and faith

            James Mennie, Montreal Gazette, Montreal Gazette
            12:40 a.m. Speaking in a voice raspy from campaigning, Canada’s next prime minister quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier, thanked his wife and children and then promised Canadians a new way of doing politics as the federal Liberal party and its leader, Justin Trudeau, wrote a new page of Canadian political history.

            Leading his party from third place at the dissolution of Parliament in August to a convincing majority, Trudeau’s speech was magnanimous and optimistic but thin on details of what we could immediately expect from his government.Given that the new government will have to transition itself to assume power from a regime in power for nine years and notorious for its secrecy, chances are Trudeau didn’t want to create expectations he mighty not be able meet in the short term, although he did go out of his way to make it clear his government shared no common philosophical ground with the previous regime, be it on provincial relations, immigrants and their cultures and Quebec’s apparently renewed faith in federalism. And perhaps that’s why most of his speech focused on the hard work of campaign workers and an admonition to never give up on a cause they believe in...

            Comment


            • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

              "but thin on details of what we could immediately expect from his government"

              Typical....

              Comment


              • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                Well the Federal Election is over, and we seem to have a Canadian version of Barack Obama soon to lead the nation:
                with a parliamentary system, and a decisive majority in parliament, he should be able to pass legislation throughout his term. it will be interesting to see what he, in fact, does.

                Comment


                • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                  Originally posted by jk View Post
                  with a parliamentary system, and a decisive majority in parliament, he should be able to pass legislation throughout his term. it will be interesting to see what he, in fact, does.
                  Goodbye F-35s, hello marijuana: What the Liberals are likely to do first

                  The National Post’s Graeme Hamilton rounds up five things that are likely to be priorities for a new Liberal government, based on the party platform and comments made during the campaign by leader Justin Trudeau.

                  1. Tax cut for the middle class

                  Leader Justin Trudeau said a Liberal government’s first piece of legislation would cut income taxes for Canadians earning between $45,000 and $89,000 a year. The promised reduction in the middle income tax bracket to 20.5 % from 22% would reduce the annual tax burden by up to $670 per person, the party platform says. But in order to cover the projected loss of tax revenue the Liberals are asking “the wealthiest one percent of Canadians to give a little more.” A new federal tax bracket of 33% for people making more than $200,000 a year would push the combined federal-provincial income tax rate above 50% in some provinces for the wealthiest.

                  2. Syrian refugees

                  Trudeau accused Stephen Harper of not doing enough to help migrants fleeing Syria. While the Conservatives set a target of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees by next September, the Liberals promised to up that to 25,000, beginning immediately. The platform promises to spend $250 million, including $100 million in the current fiscal year, “to increase refugee processing, as well as sponsorship and settlement services capacity in Canada.”

                  3. Marijuana

                  The Liberals are promising to legalize marijuana, arguing that the current system “does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.” Trudeau has promised to get to work on the changes “right away” if elected, but he could not offer a firm timeline. “We don’t yet know exactly what rate we’re going to be taxing it, how we’re going to control it, or whether it will happen in the first months, within the first year, or whether it’s going to take a year or two to kick in,” he said.

                  4. Missing and murdered indigenous women

                  The Liberal platform promises to “immediately launch a national public inquiry” into the killings and disappearances of indigenous women and girls. “We need to get justice for the victims. We need healing for the (families). And we need to ensure as a society, as a country, that we stop this ongoing tragedy,” Trudeau told a town hall hosted by VICE Canada this month.

                  5. Fighter jets

                  The Liberals have promised to cancel the Conservative purchase of F-35 jets, which is expected to cost $44 billion over the jets’ four-decade life cycle. “We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft,” the platform says, specifying that the F-35’s “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada.





                  Comment


                  • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                    ... and a Financial view ...

                    So long $10,000 TFSA, and other personal finance fallout from the federal election

                    As an advocate for Financial Independence, I fear the country’s collective “Findependence Day” will be postponed, at least for the nation’s more affluent. A scan of my Twitter feed last night (@JonChevreau) will no doubt reveal a certain amount of disappointment with the Liberal landslide, at least as it touches on taxation and retirement.

                    For example, one of my early tweets was “Kiss goodbye to the annual $10,000 TFSA contribution.” It will certainly be disappointing if the Liberals follow through with their promise to cut the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit back to the $5,500 it was until the Conservatives hiked it earlier this year.

                    While Prime Minister elect Justin Trudeau said repeatedly during the campaign that hardly anyone had “$10,000 lying around” I argued, apparently in vain, that there are hundreds of thousands of baby boomers on the cusp of retirement, not to mention many more already retired seniors, who have well over $100,000 in taxable accounts, all nest eggs on which income tax was initially paid, and yet are subject to annual rounds of tax on interest, dividend and in some cases capital gains.

                    Note too that the Liberals promised to repeal the Conservative’s income-splitting measures.

                    If there’s a silver lining for these so-called “wealthy boomers,” it’s the 1.5 percentage point reduction in the middle tax brackets between $44,700 and $89,401 (from 22% federal rate to 20.5%). That should help as boomers move from full employment to semi-retirement or full retirement: that middle-class tax bracket is roughly where I think many retirees will be. But I don’t think the $670 per person in tax savings from this measure (if at the top of the income band in that bracket) will come close to making up for the extra taxes that will be paid on taxable accounts that will be slower to convert to TFSAs.

                    Now that I think about it, despite these setbacks, it could be that very high-income people will indeed decide they have sufficient financial independence to retire earlier than they once had planned. Not because they’ll have more after-tax income, but because they’ll simply decide it’s not worth busting a gut for those last highly-taxed dollars.

                    Certainly, the motivation to keep working 50 or 60-hour weeks only to be subject to a new 33% federal tax on taxable incomes above $200,000 would be greatly diminished for at least some high-earners. As others have pointed out, you have to add provincial tax to federal so in many if not all provinces, the top marginal tax rate will exceed 50%. That’s a point many believe will reduce motivation to put in extra hours for marginal after-tax gains.

                    The younger folk who clearly gave the Liberals their majority can probably look forward to an expanded Canada Pension Plan at some point. And given the cooperation between Justin and Ontario premier Kathleen Wynn, I’d expect the province to shelve its plan for the oft-criticized Ontario Retirement Pension Plan or ORPP.

                    Voters who were unhappy about the phased-in hike of the age to begin receipt of Old Age Security may be heartened that the Liberals promised to move the planned postponement from age 67 back to the prior 65 which already is in place for those born before 1958.

                    I do fear the long-term impacts of deficits for the foreseeable future but apparently the electorate has no such concerns. I bow to their collective wisdom.

                    Jonathan Chevreau runs the Financial Independence Hub and can be reached at jonathan@findependencehub.com.





                    Comment


                    • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                      think bombardier will go into the fighter business? it couldn't be more expensive than buying f-35's.

                      Comment


                      • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                        From The Atlantic.

                        The bio of the author at the end of the article:

                        "David Frum is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the chairman of Policy Exchange. In 2001-2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush."


                        What most of you may not know is that David Frum is a Canadian. He is the son of the late Barbara Frum, one of the most well known on-air personalities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the somewhat left-leaning public radio and television service in Canada. The main atrium of the CBC Centre in downtown Toronto is named in her memory.



                        Canada Lurches to the Left

                        From Justin Trudeau to Bernie Sanders, liberals aren’t what they used to be.

                        David Frum

                        Comment


                        • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                          Originally posted by jk View Post
                          think bombardier will go into the fighter business? it couldn't be more expensive than buying f-35's.
                          Maybe.

                          I spoke recently with a young Marine officer fresh out of Annapolis, the son of a dear friend.
                          The Marine is an infantry officer.

                          When we spoke about some new weapons, the Marine had the same comment every time:
                          "The F-35 has consumed so much budget we've cancelled all the good weapons programs."

                          Comment


                          • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                            Originally posted by jk View Post
                            think bombardier will go into the fighter business? it couldn't be more expensive than buying f-35's.
                            The Canadair Division of Bombardier has the servicing contracts for the current, aging fighter, the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) "A" and "B" series CF-18 Hornet. The CF-18 purchase contract was awarded and the first planes delivered (in 1982) when Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was Prime Minister.

                            As for Canada going into the fighter manufacturing business, we tried that once before. The country still hasn't gotten over it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post

                              As for Canada going into the fighter manufacturing business, we tried that once before. The country still hasn't gotten over it.
                              it doesn't look like there was anything wrong with the arrow. its fate was sealed by competitive spending for missile defense. if the canadian gov't was about to commit $35billion [us?] to f-35's, maybe they want to revive the idea of a canadian fighter instead.

                              as i'm sure you know, the f-35 is a highly compromised and questionable airplane.

                              Comment


                              • Re: A Tale of Two Economies...

                                Originally posted by jk View Post
                                it doesn't look like there was anything wrong with the arrow. its fate was sealed by competitive spending for missile defense. if the canadian gov't was about to commit $35billion [us?] to f-35's, maybe they want to revive the idea of a canadian fighter instead.

                                as i'm sure you know, the f-35 is a highly compromised and questionable airplane.
                                Doubtful. The Liberals want to take Canada away from being seen as an aggressor nation, and return to what they see as our "peacekeeper heritage". First up will be the removal of our CF18 fighters from the Kuwait base where they are currently conducting anti-ISIS campaigns. The money "saved" will apparently go to building ships in the high unemployment Maritimes region.

                                Personally I think the day of the manned fighter are over. It makes far more sense for Canada to develop better unmanned aircraft for coastal and Arctic surveillance, and defence purposes. The CF18 was chosen in the late 1970s primarily for an interceptor role with the twin engine redundancy (over rivals such as the General Dynamics F16) felt needed for far northern operations. Russia doesn't factor into the equation in the same way as back then, so a fighter aircraft no longer fits the script.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X