WELCOME TO BACKGROUND FOR DARK TIMES DIGEST #13

MAY 22, 2009

Bonds Hit by Ratings Fears

Standard & Poor's Warns U. K., Spurring Global Worries About Climbing Debt

Britain was warned by Standard & Poor's Ratings Service that it may lose its coveted triple-A credit rating, triggering a drop in U. K. bonds and sparking global fears about the consequences of massive debts being incurred by the U.S. and other major nations as they try to dig out from the economic crisis.

Return To Top

S&P changed its outlook for the U. K.'s credit rating to negative, meaning a downgrade could come in the next couple of years. The warning -- marking the first time the U. K.'s top rating has come under threat since S&P began assessing it in 1978 -- is another blow for Prime Minister Gordon Brown ahead of elections to take place by June 2010.

The announcement quickly sent waves across the Atlantic. Investors initially dumped U. k.'s bonds and the pound, heading for the relative safety of U.S. Treasurys. But within hours, worries about an onslaught of new U.S. bond sales and the security of America's own triple-A rating drove down the prices of U.S. Treasurys.

The yield of the benchmark U.S. 10-year bond, which moves in the opposite direction to the price, rose by 0.15 percentage point from Wednesday to 3.355%, its highest level in six months.

The relative gloom about the U. k.'s and the U.S. was apparent Thursday in the market for credit-default swaps, where investors can buy and sell insurance against sovereign defaults. Five years of insurance on $10 million in U. k.'s debt jumped to around $81,000 a year, from $72,000 earlier in the day. U.S. debt insurance cost the equivalent of $37,500 -- in the same range as France at $38,000, and Germany at $35,000.

The dollar, meanwhile, declined to its lowest level against the euro in more than four months, with the euro rising 1% to $1.3905. The dollar ended the day at a six-month low against the pound. The British currency traded up 0.37% at $1.5856.

Britain's troubles reflect how countries' attempts to revive their economies and save shaky banks are taking a heavy toll on government finances. In recent months, both Ireland and Spain lost their triple-A ratings. In October, Iceland fell from single-A-plus to triple-B-plus.

Analysts said S&P's warning to the U. k.'s is a worrisome signal for other nations that are seeing their debt loads grow to levels not seen since the aftermath of World War II.

S&P expects the ratio of debt to gross domestic product to soar in many countries by 2013. In the U.S., it sees debt to GDP rising to 77%, from 44% last year; in Japan, to 120% from 110%; and in Italy, to 116% from 102%.

Thursday's selloff in U.S. and U. k.'s government bonds highlights the risks the two countries face as they try to jump-start their economies. The two governments hope that all the money they are borrowing will spur so much growth that the debt will shrink as a portion of their economies. The risk is that growth will be weak, leaving the economies still struggling but with heavy debt loads.

That's the argument made by other countries, notably Germany, that are taking a more conservative path, hoping their economies rebound without taking on that much debt. Fears that out-of-control spending will boost inflation are big reasons that both Germany and France have resisted boosting their stimulus spending further, and are likely to oppose any new attempt to get them to do more on that front. S&P sees debt ratios in France and Germany growing comparatively slowly -- to 69% and 72%, respectively.

S&P's warning to the U. k.'s led some analysts to worry that the U.S. could be next, although the dollar's status as a reserve currency gives the U.S. much more ability to carry a heavy debt load. "It's the pace of deterioration in finances that is the driving factor here," said Huw Worthington of Barclays Capital. "The U. k.'s and the U.S. have fallen far and fast, while the decline in the likes of Germany and France are more measured."

Top

U.S. stocks fell for a third straight day, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping 129.91 points, as poor jobless claims figures added to the worries about the U.S. economy.

The threat to the triple-A rating of the U.S. has been debated for years, as spending surged and deficits ballooned. Yet ratings companies have never budged on their outlook for the debt and many analysts see a downgrade as highly unlikely.

A spokesman for Moody's Investors Service reiterated the New York rating company's view that the U.S. debt rating is stable at triple-A. On May 6, Moody's noted in a credit opinion that, "While government financial strength is weakening as a result of interventions to support the financial system and the economy, other factors supporting the Aaa rating remain intact."

A spokesman for S&P said the rating firm continually reviews its ratings and last affirmed the U.S. at triple-A with a stable outlook in mid-January. S&P has triple-A ratings on 18 sovereign debt issuers.

U. k.'s stocks also plunged on Thursday, with the benchmark FTSE 100 index falling 2.7% to 4345.47 after S&P's warning. Prices of U. k.'s government bonds, or gilts, also fell, pushing their yields slightly higher and effectively raising the government's borrowing costs. The yield on the 10-year gilt jumped to 3.65% on Thursday from 3.58% the previous day.

S&P said that it will revisit the U. k.'s rating after the elections next year.

Top

"This is a gun to the head of the next administration to get the public finances back in order," said Russell Silberston, head of global interest rates at Investec Asset Management in London.

A downgrade would exacerbate the U. k.'s financial difficulties, including a gaping budget deficit, by making it more expensive for the government to borrow money, and would be a big comedown for a country that hasn't defaulted on its debt since 1693 and whose currency was at one time the preferred global medium of trade.

S&P said the U. k.'s public debt is likely to nearly double to 97% of the country's annual economic output by 2013 -- a level that, if sustained, would be inconsistent with a triple-A rating and far exceeds the government's estimate of a 79% debt-to-GDP ratio by April 2014. S&P says the cost of the U. k.'s bank bailout could reach nearly three times the government's estimate of £50 billion ($78.76 billion).

The opposition Conservative Party seized on the opportunity to criticize Mr. Brown's Labour Party. "It's now clear that Britain's economic reputation is on the line at the next general election," said George Osborne, the Conservatives' economic spokesman. The Conservatives, which stress fiscal responsibility in their platform, had a 16 percentage point lead over Labour in a survey by Internet-based polling firm YouGov published Monday.

Stephen Timms, a Treasury minister, said that the government has set out plans to halve the deficit over the next four years and to bring the public finances back into balance in the medium term. "That's the discipline that's needed at the moment, and that's the discipline that we are delivering," he said. On Thursday, though, the government reported that its budget deficit had reached £7 billion in April, nearly 10 times the level of a year earlier, putting the U. K.'s public debt on track to exceed the government's forecasts.

Top

The U. k.'s Treasury on Thursday noted that S&P reaffirmed the country's triple-A rating, at least until after the election. Fitch Ratings and Moody's Investors Service Thursday said they have no plans to change their triple-A rating of U. k.'s government debt.

"While the U. k.'s economy and public finances face considerable challenges, the government has both enough balance-sheet flexibility to absorb the shock in the short-term, and the capacity to reverse the damage over time," said Arnaud Mares, an analyst at Moody's. Moody's would change the U. k.'s rating only if it were convinced that the deterioration in Britain's finances was irreparable, Mr. Mares said.

Top

_____________________________

Top

The true measure of debt has hardly been described in public sources. It has been mentioned in private newsletters. Below is an EXCERPT from the entire report which is included as an Appendix in Karl's Book, The Coming Dark Times Turmoil.

Source: Included in Karl's Book, The Coming Dark Times Turmoil

National Press Club
Washington, DC
March 19, 2009

Dangerous Unintended Consequences:
How Banking Bailouts, Buyouts and Nationalization
Can Only Prolong America’s Second Great Depression
and Weaken Any Subsequent Recovery

Executive Summary

Top

The Fed Chairman, the Treasury Secretary, and Congress have now done more to bail out financial institutions and pump up financial markets than any of their counterparts in history.

But it’s not nearly enough; and, at the same time, it’s already far too much.

Two years ago, when major banks announced multibillion losses in subprime mortgages, the world’s central banks injected unprecedented amounts of cash into the financial markets. But that was not enough.

Six months later, when Lehman Brothers and American Insurance Group (AIG) fell, the U.S. Congress rushed to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the greatest bank bailout legislation of all time. But as it turned out, that wasn’t sufficient either.

Subsequently, in addition to the original goal of TARP, the U.S. government has loaned, invested, or committed $400 billion to nationalize the world’s two largest mortgage companies, $42 billion for the Big Three auto manufacturers; $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $185 billion for AIG; $350 billion for Citigroup; $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration Rescue Bill; $87 billion to pay back JPMorgan Chase for bad Lehman Brothers trades; $200 billion in loans to banks under the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility (TAF); $50 billion to support short‐term corporate IOUs held by money market mutual funds; $500 billion to
rescue various credit markets; $620 billion in currency swaps for industrial nations, $120 billion in swaps for emerging markets; trillions to cover the FDIC’s new, expanded bank deposit insurance plus trillions more for other sweeping guarantees; and it still wasn’t enough.

Top

If it had been enough, the Fed would not have felt compelled yesterday to announce its plan to buy $300 billion in long‐term Treasury bonds, an additional $750 billion in agency mortgage backed securities, plus $100 billion more in GSE debt.

Total tally of government funds committed to date: Closing in on $13 trillion, or $1.15 trillion more than the tally just 24 hours ago, when the body of this white paper was printed. And yet, even that astronomical sum is still not enough for a number of reasons:

First, most of the money is being poured into a virtually bottomless pit. Even while Uncle Sam spends or lends hundreds of billions, the wealth destruction taking place at the household level in America is occurring in the trillions — $12.9 trillion vaporized in real estate, stocks, and other assets since the onset of the crisis, according to the Fed’s latest Flow of Funds.

Second, most of the money from the government is still a promise, and even much of the disbursed funds have yet to reach their destination. Meanwhile, all of the wealth lost has already hit home — in the household.

Third, the government has been, and is, greatly underestimating the magnitude of this debt crisis. Specifically, the FDIC’s “Problem List” of troubled banks includes only 252 institutions with assets of $159 billion.

Top

However, based on our analysis, a total of 1,568 banks and thrifts are at risk of failure with assets of $2.32 trillion due to weak capital, asset quality, earnings and other factors. (The details are in Part I of our paper, and the institutions are named in Appendix A.)

When Treasury officials first planned to provide TARP funds to Citigroup, they assumed it was among the strong institutions; that the funds would go primarily toward stabilizing the markets or the economy. But even before the check could be cut, they learned that the money would have to be for a very different purpose: an emergency injection of capital to prevent Citigroup’s collapse.

Based on our analysis, however, Citigroup is not alone. We could witness a similar outcome for JPMorgan Chase and other major banks.

(See Part II.)

Top

AIG is big, but it, too, is not alone. Yes, in a February 26 memorandum, AIG made the case that its $2 trillion in credit default swaps (CDS) would have been the big event that could have caused a global collapse. And indeed, its counterparties alone have $36 trillion in assets. But AIG’s CDS portfolio is just one of many: Citibank’s portfolio has $2.9 trillion, almost a trillion more than AIG’s at its peak. JPMorgan Chase has $9.2 trillion, or almost five times more than AIG. And globally, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) reports a total of $57.3 trillion in credit default swaps, more than 28 times larger than AIG’s CDS portfolio.

Clearly, the money available to the U.S. government is too small for a crisis of these dimensions. But at the same time, the massive sums being committed by the U.S. government are also too much: In the U.S. banking industry, shotgun mergers, buyouts and bailouts are accomplishing little more than shifting their toxic assets like DDT up the food chain. And the government’s promises to buy up the toxic paper have done little more
than encourage banks to hold on, piling up even bigger losses.

The money spent or committed by the government so far is also too much for another, less-known reason:

Top

Hidden in an obscure corner of the derivatives market is a unique credit default swap that virtually no one is talking about — contracts on the default of the United States Treasury bonds. Quietly and without fanfare, a small but growing number of investors are not only thinking the unthinkable, they’re actually spending money on it, bidding up the premiums on Treasury bond credit default swaps to 14 times their 2007 level. This is an early warning of the next big shoe to drop in the debt crisis — serious potential damage to the credit, credibility and borrowing power of the United States Treasury.

We have no doubt that, when pressed, the U.S. government will take whatever future steps are necessary to sufficiently control its finances and avoid a fatal default on its debts.

However, neither the administration nor any other government can control the perceptions of its creditors in the marketplace. And currently, the market’s perception of the U.S. government’s credit is falling, as anticipation of a possible future default by
the U.S. government, no matter how unlikely, is rising.

Top

This trend packs a powerful message — that there’s no free lunch; that it’s unreasonable to believe the U.S. government can bail out every failing giant with no consequences; and that, contrary to popular belief, even Uncle Sam must face his day of reckoning with creditors.

We view that as a positive force. We are optimistic that, thanks to the power of investors, creditors, and the people of the United States, we will ultimately guide, nudge and push ourselves to make prudent and courageous choices:

1. We will back off from the tactical debates about how to bail out institutions or markets, and rethink our overarching goals. Until now, the oft‐stated goal has been to prevent a national banking crisis and avoid an economic depression. However, we will soon realize that the true costs of that enterprise — the 13‐digit dollar figures and damage to our nation’s credit — are far too high.

2. We will replace the irrational, unachievable goal of jury‐rigging the economic cycle, with the reasoned, achievable goal of rebuilding the economy’s foundation in preparation for an eventual recovery.

Right now, the public knows intuitively that a key factor that got us into trouble was too much debt. Yet, the solution being offered is to encourage banks to lend more and people to borrow more.

Top

Economists almost universally agree that one of the grave weaknesses of our economy is the lack of savings needed for healthy capital formation, investment in better technology, infrastructure, and education. Yet, the solution being offered is to spend more and, by extension, to save less.

These disconnects will not persist. Policymakers will soon realize they have to change course.

3. When we change our goals, it naturally follows that we will also change our priorities — from the battles we can’t win to the war we can’t afford to lose:

Right now, for example, despite obviously choppy seas, the prevailing theory seems to be that the ship is unsinkable, or that the government can keep it afloat no matter how bad the storm may be.

With that theory, they might ask: “Why have lifeboats for every passenger? Why do much more for hospitals that are laying off ER staff, for countless charities that are going broke, or for one in 50 American children who are homeless? Why prepare for the financial Katrinas that could strike nearly every city?”

The answer will be: Because we have no other choice; because that’s a war we can and will win. It will not be very expensive. We have the infrastructure. And we’ll have plenty of volunteers.

Top

4. Right now, our long-term strategies and short‐term tactics are in conflict. We try to squelch each crisis and kick it down the road. Then we do it again with each new crisis. Meanwhile, fiscal reforms are talked up in debates but pushed out in time. Regulatory changes are mapped out in detail, but undermined in practice.

Soon, however, with more reasonable, achievable goals, theory and practice will fall into synch.

5. Instead of trying to plug our fingers in the dike, we’re going to guide and manage the natural flow of a deflation cycle to reap its silver-lining benefits — a reduction in burdensome debts, a stronger dollar, a lower cost of living, a healthier work ethic, an enhanced ability to compete globally.

6. We’re going to buffer the population from the most harmful social side-effects of a worst-case scenario.

Then we’re going to step up, bite the bullet, pay the penalty for our past mistakes, and make hard sacrifices today that build a firm foundation for an eventual economic recovery. We will not demand instant gratification. We will assume responsibility for the future of our children.

Top

7. We will cease the doubletalk and return to some basic axioms, namely that:

The price is the price. Once it is established that our overarching goal is to manage — not block — natural economic cycles, it will naturally follow that regulators can guide, rather than hinder, a market-driven cleansing of bad debts. The market price will not frighten us. We can use it more universally to value assets.

A loss is a loss. Whether institutions hold asset or sell assets, whether they decide to sell now or sell later, if the asset is worth less than what it was purchased for, it’s a loss.

Capital is capital. It is not goodwill, or other intangible assets that are unlikely to ever be sold. It is not tax advantages that may never be reaped.

A failure is a failure. If market prices mean that institutions have big losses, and if the big losses mean all capital is gone, then the institution has failed.

Top

8. We will pro‐actively shut down the weakest institutions no matter how large they may be; provide opportunities for borderline institutions to rehabilitate themselves under a slim diet of low‐risk lending; and give the surviving, well‐capitalized institutions better opportunities to gain market share.

Kansas City Federal Reserve President Thomas Hoenig recommends that “public authorities would be directed to declare any financial institution insolvent whenever its capital level falls too low to support its ongoing operations and the claims against it, or whenever the market loses confidence in the firm and refuses to provide funding and capital.

This directive should be clearly stated and consistently adhered to for all financial
institutions that are part of the intermediation process or payments system.” We agree.

9. We will build confidence in the banking system, but in a very different way:

Right now, banking authorities are their own worst enemy. They paint the entire banking industry with a single broad brush — “safe.” But when consumers see big banks on the brink of bankruptcy, their response is to paint the entire industry with an alternate broad brush — that the entire banking industry is “unsafe.”

Top

To prevent that outcome, we will challenge the authorities to release their confidential CAMELS ratings on each bank in the country. And to restore some risk for depositors, we will ask them to reverse the expansion of FDIC coverage limits, bringing back the $100,000 cap for individuals and businesses.

Although these steps may hurt individual banks in the short run, it will not harm the banking system in the long run. Quite the contrary, when consumers have a reason to discriminate rationally between safe and unsafe institutions, and when they have a motive to shift their funds freely to stronger hands, they will strengthen the banking system.

I am making these recommendations because I am optimistic we can get through this crisis.

Our social and physical infrastructure, our knowledge base, and our Democratic form of government are strong enough to make it possible. As a nation, we’ve been through worse before, and we survived then. With all our wealth and knowledge, we can certainly do it again today.

But my optimism comes with no guarantees. Ultimately, we’re going to have to make a choice: The right choice is to make shared sacrifices, let deflation do its work, and start regenerating the economic forces that have made the United States such a great country. The wrong choice is to take the easy way out, try to save most big corporations, print money without bounds, debase our dollar, and ultimately allow inflation to destroy our society.

This white paper is my small way of encouraging you, with data and reason, to make the right choice starting right now.

Attention editors and publishers! Money and Markets issues can be republished. Republished issues MUST include attribution of the author(s) and the following short paragraph:

This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com.

Karl Note: Dr. Weiss, giving this speech and paper in March 2009, has seen by May 2009, that there are few if any who are willing to take his advice.

Top

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.