Second, there is evidence that the regulators are taking a harder line at Bank of America and Citigroup. Each has its own problems, but the Feds seem to believe that they can step up their demands on these two financial institutions concerning boards, managements, business affairs, and so forth. They would not do this if they believed the system to be too fragile.

Third, I sense the Federal Reserve backing off from the more aggressive stance it took with respect to the bond markets one to two months ago. This is just a feeling that I will be following up on in the near future.

These actions provide some preliminary evidence that we are in the “working out” stage of the credit cycle where time is the biggest factor to contend with. Bailouts are needed to prevent “liquidity” problems when markets might crumble under cumulative selling pressures. But, this is a short run problem.

The “work out” phase of a financial crisis is the period when institutions still have severe credit problems but are not under short term pressures to relieve their balance sheets of “toxic” or “underwater” assets.

This does not mean that there will not be more failures of financial institutions and some of them may be relatively large ones. What it does mean is that the problems that still exist within the financial sector can be handled in a relatively orderly fashion. So, the banks and the regulators can operate within an environment that does not seem “desperate.” Severely troubled still, but not in a state of panic.

Within this scenario, the questions that remain about the banking system relate to earnings. We have seen Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. post strong gains for the second quarter. However, most of the gains were attributed to trading activities, with secondary help from their underwriting business. These are not good, solid “banking” results. And, these organizations are highly diversified and can post returns from these areas, something that most other banks in the United States cannot do.

Still, the banking system seems to be in the stage of recovery where current cash flows can allow the individual banks to write off more and more of their loans and other assets over time and thereby restore the integrity of their balance sheets. With the results it achieved in trading and underwriting, JPMorgan Chase was able to take large write downs of home equity loans, mortgage defaults, and credit card charge offs while also increasing the amount of funds it set aside to increase its loan loss reserve. This is what other banks will be doing to reduce the burden of bad assets they are now carrying.

Overall, Total Assets in the commercial banking system grew by 8.9% from June 2008 to June 2009. The capital residual (Assets less Liabilities) in the system grew by 7.6% so that the capital asset ratio of the banking system dropped from 10.2% to 10.1%.

In terms of how the banks are attempting to protect themselves, the Cash assets of Commercial Banks in the United States were up 186%, year-over-year, in June 2009, although this rate of increase is down from a year-over-year rate of increase of 236% increase in May 2009.

Total Loans and Leases in the banking system rose just about 1.4%, year-over-year, in June while Commercial and Industrial Loans actually decreased by 3.1%. Commercial banks are just not lending to businesses which continues the trend which began last year. Banks are lending to consumers, up 5.5% year-over-year (primarily on credit cards and other revolving credit plans), and on real estate, up 6.4% year-over-year (the largest jump coming in revolving home equity loans).

The cash assets held in the commercial banking system declined regularly throughout June as the peak in cash assets held was reached in May. Thus, it appears that banks are backing off from taking everything the Federal Reserve has put into the banking system and stashing it away in “cash accounts”. This is confirmed by the aggregate banking data put out by the Federal Reserve which indicates that total reserves in the banking system dropped throughout June 2009 and the excess reserves also fell from peak levels reached in late May.

Thus, it appears that things are working out pretty much as the Fed hoped they would. (See my explanation of what the Fed has been trying to do, http://seekingalpha.com/article/145913-is-treasury-s-tarp-debt-already-monetized-part-ii.) Of course, the game is not over yet!

Bottom line: the banking system is working through its problems. The Federal Reserve and the regulators seem to be backing off a little, allowing the system to adjust over time to its dislocations. There is still room for a surprise, but, the more time passes, the less likely a surprise is likely to occur. In other words, the unknown unknowns have been substantially reduced and the known unknowns are what we are working on.

The banks are not lending except on established credit lines (credit cards and home equity loans) and there appears to be plenty of liquidity in the system as a whole. Whereas the lack of lending slows up the possibility for an economic recovery, it is an essential component of getting the banking system healthy again which is needed if there is to be any chance of a robust economic recovery in our future.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
The State of the Banking System

Let’s look at the following information.

Average Yearly Increase in Gross Federal Debt (in billions of dollars)

Nixon/Ford $49.5

Carter $90.2

Reagan $258.6

Bush 41 $359.3

Clinton $232.1

Bush 43 $541.1

Now let’s look at the decline in the value of the dollar from the start of an administration to the end of that administration. I will use the trade weighted index of the United States dollar versus major currencies. The series begins in January 1973. Up until August 1971 the United States had a fixed exchange rate. At that time President Nixon announced that he was allowing the dollar to float in foreign exchange markets and was taking the United States off of the gold standard.

He also announced that “We are all Keynesians now!” meaning that he was going to stimulate the economy with budget deficits (so that he could get re-elected) and to protect against inflation he was freezing wages and prices. He created the Cost of Living Council and the Committee on Interest and Dividends to administer these controls as well as controls on interest rates. As can be seen from the above figures, the Gross Federal Debt increased by an average of almost $50 billion every year during the Nixon/Ford years. This compares with those spendthrifts John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who introduced Keynesian economic policies to the United States and who only increased the Gross Federal Debt by an average of less than $10 billion per year.

Change in the value of the dollar (as measured against major foreign currencies).

Nixon/Ford – 1.0 %

Carter – 10.4 %

Reagan – 5.7%

Bush 41 – 1.9 %

Clinton + 16.6%

Bush 41 – 21.6%

Note that the only administration to see a rise in the value of the dollar over the past forty years was the Clinton administration. Note, too, that the only break in the continued increase in the Gross Federal Debt outstanding was during the Clinton administration. As you may recall, the last four years it was in office, the Clinton administration ran budget surpluses.

Also, one can remember the accolades received by Paul Volcker, when he was the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for bringing inflation under control. Volcker was Chairman from August 1979 until August 1987. Volcker did bring inflation under control and early on this effort was reflected in a rise in the value of the United States dollar. The value of the dollar reached a short term bottom in July 1980 and then, accompanying the decline of inflation in the United States, the dollar rose in value by 55 percent to peak out on March 1985. However, even Volcker could not hold out against the massive deficits that the Reagan administration was piling up and the value of the dollar fell from that peak by 31 percent through the month at Volcker left his position at the Fed. Even someone as strong as Paul Volcker could not fight against the increasing deficits that were being posted by the Reagan administration. The value of the dollar closed lower at the end of the Reagan years than it was at the start.

The only conclusion one can draw from these data is that participants in international financial markets do not like the currency of countries that lack discipline over their fiscal affairs. This, of course, has very strong implications for the Obama administration. With the possibility that the Gross Federal Debt is on a trajectory in which the debt will increase in the $1.0 trillion range per year, at least for the near term, the implications seem clear. There will be continued pressure on the value of the United States dollar in the upcoming years.

The specific argument for this relationship is that increased federal deficits will result in increased monetization of the debt. Increased monetization of the debt will result in an increased rate of inflation. An increased rate of inflation will cause the value of the currency to decline. So, the question being posed by skeptics right now is “where is the inflation?” The time seems more right for deflation rather than inflation.

In the short run it is hard to argue against this logic. The only thing one can fall back on to answer this question is the fact that when budget deficits increase and there is no relief from substantial increases in the debt of the country, participants in international markets tend to sell the currency. What we have seen in the past is that any inflation that results from the massive increase in the debt outstanding can come in many forms that are not all registered in the computed price indices like the Consumer Price Index. Something like the CPI is an estimate, a guess at what is happening to prices. The important thing to remember about massive increases in debt is that they have to go somewhere and where ever they go they will have large consequences. We hope that we can measure these consequences and measure them in a timely manner. However, that does not always happen.
And, where else are we seeing action? India has now joined China and Russia and Brazil in calling for a discussion at the upcoming G-8 conference of the place of the United States dollar in the world’s monetary system. China is tired of continuing to support its currency against the United States dollar. Given the likelihood of a further decline in the value of the dollar, China faces the need to buy more and more dollars and invest in more and more securities from the United States. This, in the longer run, is not in China’s best interest. Nations, other than England and those from the Eurozone, are getting tired of the United States abusing its privilege of having the only reserve currency in the world. Although nothing is going to be done to change the monetary system at this time, this talk is going to get stronger and stronger. And, if the value of the dollar continues to decline in the future, the arguments are going to resonate more and more with others in the world. The basic approach to fiscal policy in the United States over the past 50 years has not been the most productive one in terms of maintaining a sound dollar currency.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Deficits and the Declining Value of the Dollar

These researchers tell us that this type of behavior is what has helped the human species survive. However, it is not necessarily the kind of behavior that leads to decisions or actions that are in our best interest when investing. “Relying only on intuition in finance can lead to very bad outcomes, not only for individuals but also for markets.” (This quote comes from David Adler’s new book “Snap Judgment”: see my post that reviews this book, http://seekingalpha.com/article/145660-book-review-snap-judgment-by-david-e-adler.) Yet we humans, individually and collectively continue to perform in this way.

Right now, the concern is whether or not the economy is bottoming out and starting to recover. We get “green shoots” here, but then some other indicator of economic activity comes in worse than expected. Alcoa puts up better than expected loss numbers but retail sales come in lower than expected. Sales of existing homes improve yet we get wind of another wave of subprime mortgage problems. (See “Subprime Returns as Housing Woe,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709571378614945.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing.) And, what about the problems in commercial real estate, credit cards, and Alt A mortgages?

Then there is the question about whether or not there should be a second round stimulus bill. Paul Krugman has argued for a long time that the first stimulus bill was not enough. Yesterday Laura Tyson indicated that she thought that there needed to be a second round. Now the debate is all over the place. But, wouldn’t another stimulus bill add more to the government budget deficit going forward? And, there are questions about the possibility that the government has already committed to too much debt.

So the Dow Jones average goes up from 6500 and looks very strong approaching 9000 and then goes into a swoon. The price of crude oil was approaching $40 a barrel in February and then shot up to above $70 but now has returned to the $60 range. The yield on the 10-year treasury issue was nearing 2.00% in December 2008, jumped up to around 3.90% in the middle of June and traded at 3.30% yesterday. An index relating the value of the dollar against major currencies was around 70 in July 2008, popped up to the mid-80s in March 2009 and has since declined to about 77.

When the economic indicators seem strong the price of oil goes up as does the stock market and the price of bonds and the value of the dollar decline. When the economy seems weaker we get just the opposite movements. And, my bet is that it is going to continue this way for a while. So, uncertainty, and hence volatility, rule the marketplace.

This is the short run. Recently, however, I have been writing more upon the long run, what deficits do to long term interest rates and to the value of the dollar. Over the longer run, historically, some patterns repeat themselves over and over again. This, of course, brings to mind the statement made by John Maynard Keynes, “In the long run we are all dead!” Still, we need to take the long run into account.

This is where we need to take heed of what the behavioral economists advise. We, as investors, must not rely on intuition or gut reactions. We must not over react to the environment we now find ourselves in. Research has shown that acting in this way is not necessarily in our best interest.

The research also indicates that investing based on fundamental economic reasoning does work. Therefore, it seems as if now is a time for discipline and hard work. And, it is a time for patience.

But, this does not mean that one needs to totally ignore the short run. It is perhaps impossible to expect that most people will just sit out this stage of the economic cycle and invest their funds in safe, low-yielding assets. So, what kind of strategy might work here? My suggestion is that one needs to segment one’s portfolio, allocating some money to playing in the current market volatility, but allocating a larger share of the funds to potential future fundamental investment choices.

The smaller part of the portfolio can be allocated to playing both sides of various markets. Obviously, getting into the market near a “bottom” would be very profitable, but selling short near a “top” would also work. But, by all means consider any investments here as short term in nature because it is highly likely that the “bottom” may not turn out to be a “bottom” at all. Likewise for a “top.” So, one must be very agile in investing this way. Don’t hang onto losses, but let gains ride. Behavioral finance tells us that people tend to operate in the opposite way hanging onto losses hoping for the best and quickly selling gains to have something to show for their efforts. This is where discipline and focus are crucial.

Furthermore, remember that, on average, the expected returns on trading are zero: and there are still fees that need to be paid. But, using part of your funds in this way keeps you “playing the game” while still keeping the major part of your portfolio available for “value” investing to take advantage of longer run opportunities.

As research has shown, the fundamentals do apply over longer periods of time. Perhaps, however, it is not quite time to commit to some of these “value” propositions. People are worried about the potential inflation that may come about due to the large government budget deficits and the possibility that the Federal Reserve will have to monetize a substantial amount of the debt created. But, there are many people who think that deflation is going to be more of an issue in the near term. Hence, it is perhaps a little premature to put funds into investments that will prosper from a future period of high inflation. This part of the portfolio should be kept safe, but also should be able to be accessed when the time is right to commit to the longer run fundamentals. Research, however, has shown that it is alright to be a little early on these types of investments because the possible returns on such a commitment to fundamentals are substantial enough that being a little early is not harmful.

It is also important that an investor should stay in the areas of the market that they know best. If your skills lend themselves to the technology sector of the stock market then stay there. If your skills are in the government bond market then stay there. If your skills are in the foreign exchange market then stay there. Again, discipline and focus are all important.

Uncertainty is going to remain with us for quite some time in financial markets and commodity markets. The behavioral economists have warned us that this is a dangerous time to act in just an impulsive or instinctive manner. So, if being methodical is not your “cup of tea” then beware for the statistics are not with you. Chasing every “green shoot” or market reaction is not going to produce happy results. Acting in a focused and disciplined way may be very difficult for us to achieve but we need to try. That is what humans have learned they must do in activities like investing in financial or commodity markets.

Good Article? Pull it from here:
Uncertainty: The King of the Market and what to do about it

For any asset manager, the decision to invest in foreign currency denominated securities must be made after weighing the relative risk and return of both the securities themselves, as well as the expected currency performance versus the asset manager’s reporting or home currency.  A currency overlay strategy provides a means by which to separate and mitigate the currency risk from the investment risk decision-making process.  Essentially, the aim of the strategy, as employed, is to allow the asset manager to gain access to foreign currency denominated security exposure without accepting the risk of a depreciating USD (or other foreign currency).  In so doing, the overall performance of the manager is solely dependent upon the relative return of the security in question and is independent of the volatility of the underlying currency exposure (their FX position being partially if not fully hedged).  Essentially, a currency hedge allows one to freely invest abroad based on the merits of the security alone, without having to take into account the macro factors that can impact both short and long-term currency valuations.

If an asset manager doesn’t have a definitive perspective of the currency pair’s direction, or is at all unsure of the timing or scale of forecasted movements, a currency overlay strategy can be executed to deliver a currency neutral performance of the foreign investment.  In its simplest form, an overlay strategy can take the form of a perpetual or term-based forward hedge. It is either strategically rolled, to best manage the cost or opportunity of carry, or simply rolled at periodic intervals, so as to realize the mark-to-market value of the currency offset.  Though a forward-based currency hedge will unquestionably deliver the most efficient price and execution, it fails to allow for any upside participation in a more favorable market movement.

With the execution of an option-based strategy as opposed to a forward-based sale, the investment manager can effectively cap the downside risk associated with an unfavorable currency movement while also affording oneself the ability to fully participate in favorable market movements, after having taken into account the premium expense of a vanilla option.

Though market volatility levels remain elevated, enhancing the chances of a windfall gain from an outsized favorable movement, so too do option prices; however, the option prices are a direct result of that elevated volatility.  In the present market environment, many asset managers are looking to structured option products that offer reduced levels of upside market participation in exchange for a reduced or negated option premium.  By capping or limiting the potential upside risk of a strategy with an opposing sold vanilla option or barrier trigger, one can reduce or eliminate the associated premium expense entirely while still maintaining some upside participation.

Though overlay strategies are typically employed alongside a long or short position in a foreign denominated security, many asset managers also employ currency hedges in anticipation of taking on a foreign position at some point in the future.  Given the relative underperformance of the pound sterling in recent months, as an example, one might elect to go long GBP with a forward or option-based hedge to lock in the relatively attractive currency levels while waiting to step into an equity position after a short-term retracement in equities.  Though one could argue that the current market environment would favor a lower pound, should equity valuations, particularly in the UK, tail off once again on general market risk aversion, it is conceivable to believe that a short-term corrective pullback in equity market appetite wouldn’t materially impact currency valuations in the medium-term.  If this is consistent with the asset manager’s view, it could very well be prudent to go long the currency at today’s level, hedging against the risk that a risk-sensitive pound sterling eats into the profitability of a future underlying security position.

Although an equity purchase in an emerging market wouldn’t likely be met with a conflicting view on the domestic currency in the present market environment where currencies and equities remain highly correlated, the validity of an overlay strategy becomes apparent when evaluating the relative merits of a US-based equity purchase by a Canadian asset manager.  Given the USD’s strongly inverse correlation with equities in today’s risk sensitive climate, today’s asset manager must take care to evaluate the relative risk and reward scenarios of such a foreign exposure.  After all, successful investment management is as much about risk mitigation as it is risk acceptance.

- Mark Frey

Disclosure: None.

The United States has not been immune to this pressure throughout this time period. Of recent note, reference has often been made of the pressure the Clinton administration faced early on that resulted in a fiscal discipline that brought about a surplus in the government’s budget in the latter years of the administration. Of course, that discipline completely disappeared in the Bush 43 years supported by a compliant Federal Reserve System. As a consequence the value of the United States dollar decline in a relatively steady fashion from late 2001 through August 2008.

The rebound in the value of the dollar only came about as the world wide financial crisis created a movement toward United States Treasury securities and credit quality. As this movement has subsided, the dollar has shown some weakness once again.

The bet right now is that given the massive budget deficits projected for the next several years the Obama administration will find itself in the same fiscal stance that the Bush 43 administration was. But, even worse, the Federal Reserve has already liquefied the financial system and now seems to be in a position where it has to provide even more liquidity to banks in order to assist the placement of all the new governmental debt coming to market.

As almost everyone knows the Federal Reserve has more than doubled the size of its balance sheet since the first week in September last year going from about $880 billion in assets to around $2,060 billion on June 3, 2009. Total reserves in the banking system have increased by roughly 1,900% since then and excess reserve in the banking system recently have averaged slightly below the size of the whole Federal Reserve balance sheet in that first week of September last year (up from just $2 billion then). The ominous change, however, is that recently the Fed’s holdings of U. S. Treasury securities has begun to rise once again as the Fed has given more support for the bond market. The increase in the Fed’s portfolio of Treasury securities was almost $46 billion from Wednesday May 6 to Wednesday June 3.

So, the Fed has supplied a tremendous amount of liquidity to the banking system that is just sitting out there waiting to see what further solvency shocks it will have to face. (See my post of June 4, 2009, http://maseportfolio.blogspot.com/.) Even though Chairman Bernanke has promised that the liquidity will be removed from the financial system once the need for it goes away, it is hard to see how all these funds will be taken away in a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, if the Federal Reserve is under pressure to support the forthcoming supply of new Treasury issues it is hard to see how it can both reduce its balance sheet while at the same time provide support to the bond market: especially if it has already started with this support.

It, therefore, seems as if there is some justification for participants in international financial markets to be concerned about a further decline in the value of the United States dollar. The scenario unfolding in the United States has all the components to it that international markets reacted against in the past forty years or so. And, the promises of the Obama administration to bring the federal budget under control with savings resulting from the, as-yet, unknown health care program appear to be grossly optimistic, at best.

There is another factor looming on the horizon that has not been present in earlier discussions about the value of the dollar. Over the past forty years or so there never has been a question raised about the role that the United States dollar plays in the international financial system. Over the past six months this topic, something that was unthinkable before, has been raised by the leaders of several countries.

In my estimation we are a long way from de-throning the United States dollar from its lofty position. However, one must take into consideration the fact that this idea is even being seriously floated in the world today. This points up the fact that the fiscal and monetary position of the United States government is being questioned and this only provides additional evidence of the weakness of the dollar in world markets.

The primary concern is being expressed by the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India, and China. These are the countries that are closing the economic gap between themselves and the United States. Not that the United States will lose its Number One position as an economic power: just that these countries are coming on fast to reduce the difference. And, as these nations become more powerful relative to the United States, more and more attention is going to have to be paid to their economic and financial issues and concerns.

The BRIC countries are in a bind right now and the tension is only going to grow. These countries tend to be exporting countries and therefore must accumulate foreign exchange. The United States dollar has been the currency of choice in the past. Now, however, their large dollar holdings are “at risk” because a decline in the value of the dollar will only hurt them. As a consequence they have kept the dollar from falling further than it would have otherwise by buying large amounts of U. S. dollars. In May, the BRIC countries increased foreign reserves by more that $60 billion in an effort keep the dollar from falling further than it did. In fact, these nations are adding to their dollar reserves at their fasted pace ever.

Yet, at present, there is no alternative for them to chose. One analyst has stated that discontent with the dollar is increasing, yet nobody knows what needs to be done. Hence, the frustration with the situation has been expressed by leaders from Russia, China, and Brazil. This feeling has risen to the surface in Germany where last week German Chancellor Angela Merkel verbally took on the central banks of the United States and England for their loose monetary policies.

This is a situation that is only going to get worse before it gets any better. One can talk all they want to about the possibility of inflation and when or if inflation is actually a fear that should be present in the United States at this time. The problem is that the correlation between excessively large governmental budget deficits and loose monetary policy is too high for participants in international financial markets to ignore. Furthermore, the power of the BRIC countries is growing and their needs and desires are going to have to be accounted for. And, within these latter countries there is the stunning rise of China. Given all the economic and financial turmoil in the world, China is probably going to achieve a more prominent world role even faster than anyone expected.

The world has indeed changed. Whereas the United States has not given enough attention over the last forty years to the value of the dollar in international financial markets, it is going to have to do so going forward. The Obama administration cannot afford to casually claim to want a strong dollar and then ignore the fact that it continually declined in value the way Bush 43 did. The rest of the world will not allow this to happen.

- John Mason

Disclosure: This article was taken from Mase: Economics and Finance with the permission of the original author.  All disclosure questions should be refferred to the original author.