Lex needs a new calculator

“In the UK interest rate cuts since the start of the crisis have delivered the average £103,000 floating rate mortgage holder an annual saving of £4,635.Against that the government estimates the net cost of bailing out the financial system at £10bn or £400 per household.”  Lex in the Financial Times today.

There are 26m households in the UK.

But only 11.1m of households have a mortgage and of those, only 55%, or 6 million, are on variable rates.

In other words 100% of households paid £400, but only 23% received savings of £4,635.

Plus all households shared (via pension and other indirect and direct holdings), in the loss of £5bn of dividend income from Royal Bank of Scotland (£3bn dividends in 2007, nil in 2009) and Lloyds (£2bn dividends in 2007, nil in 2009) = £192 per household.

All households via pension other indirect and direct holdings, shared in the loss of billions of market value of the UK quoted bank sector. The £30bn loss of market value of Royal Bank of Scotland alone amounted to £1,150 for every household.

So without really trying I am already up to £1,742 for every household.

Is Lex spinning or being economical with the truth?

Who gains from the gross misrepresentation of the facts?

Follow the money?

Lex, care to calculate what the total reduction in the value of UK bank shares was, divided by households? Who do you think bore that cost? Maybe you need new batteries for your calculator?

Bun rating – Zero,  too much smoke and too many mirrors to see if there is a pattie

Read Full Post »

Lex – no point to make with a blunt pin

Lex, today attempts to prick the commodity bubble with a blunt pin.  In “Reading the commodity leaves”,  Lex suggests that the relationship between actual changes in  demand for commodities and the prospects for growth in world manufactures mean that there is scant justification for the current commodities price level.

But Lex could make this observation currentlyabout most other investment capital asset indices.  Neither does he show awareness that it is only relatively recently that the prices of commodities have been determined to a unquantifiable but significant extent by  ’investment’  demand, and not just end-user demand.

The one year commodity index chart (S&P/GSCI), looks just like most  other capital asset indices one year charts, i.e. united by similar levels of capital asset price inflation.

Common sense suggests that the driver that links all investment asset classes price levels must be liquidity and credit levels.  Since Lex (nor anyone else) does not understand precisely how credit and  capital asset price inflation act on each other,  it would be helpful if Lex would just shut up.

Bun rating: 0 but waffles are available instead.

Read Full Post »

Lex – who is being stuffed?

Lex writes about the proposed Lloyds capital raising –  the world’s largest – but misses the opportunity for deserved excoriating criticism on behalf of the poor bloody individuals who are the being plucked and stuffed by the fund managers gifting  their savings.

Here is a quote from yesterday’s “HM Treasury – Government Announcement on Banks. Implementation of Financial Stability Measures for Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland”:

 ”The remaining risks are better shared with private sector shareholders – for Lloyds, the private sector will provide £15bn of capital and for RBS, the first loss on the remaining £282bn of contingent liabilities has increased to £60bn. “

But the ‘private sector’ in this instance comprises mainly the same taxpayers who will now take on additional Lloyds liabilities via their pension and savings products which will be stuffed by their managers with unwanted bank shares. You can be certain that the individual pension and savings participants will not be asked if they want to support the capital raising, and if they were,  it isn’t difficult to imagine the answer.

Why would a rational investor buy new Lloyd’s bank shares?  There is no visible or certain investment return. On any criterion the rights issue from Lloyds would normally be considered a high risk investment.

The truth is the rights issue is an indictment of the present financial system, whereby a minority of savings controllers can misrepresent the interests of the majority participant investors , the disenfranchised suppliers of capital, to acheive their own narrowly profitable ends. See also http://fabooks.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-disenfranchisement-of-capital-%e2%80%93-how-the-city-stole-your-vote/

Bun rating: 100% the world’s largest stuffed bun

 

Read Full Post »

Lex – the way to better buttock care?

There have been many rights issues during the past few months. Most of them would have been repulsive to individually franchised rational investors because they are really fee-fertile rescue issues in disguise (BDEV, SHI, NTG, YELL, etc, etc, etc).

Some financial columnists writing in 2009 about rights issues hint at the reality, speculating about the prospects of ‘getting them away’ (i.e. ‘getting away with them’) or focus on the fat underwriting fees and issue expenses .  I can’t recall once having seen an objective piece of analysis of a rights issue from an investment perspective. Probably because no case can be made in most instances.

Issues are subscribed by institutions on behalf of (in theory),  the myriad individual investors they collectively represent. However the  individual constituent investors  are never consulted, reminiscent of the once notorious block vote wielded at labour party conferences by the trades unions, where constituent members were not consulted before their votes were assigned to whatever barmy cause the leaders supported.

Why would real investors, by real I mean individually franchised rational investors with their own money at stake, subscribe to new shares in banks?  World markets are already awash with bank shares. Even in the UK there are billions of them already available.

Lex tries to say something about the possible Lloyds rights issue. As usual the sum of the comment is zero. On the one of Lex’s hands:

“A successful cash call would enable a beefed-up Lloyds to avoid the government’s asset protection scheme, so saving a £15.6bn insurance premium. It would still have to pay a break fee for APS cover over the past six months, rumored to be £2.5bn. On top of that, Lloyds must pay advisory and underwriting fees, perhaps another £300m. The net saving, therefore, may be about £13bn. Not bad.

 Subscribers, meanwhile, would increase their bet on the UK’s largest domestic retail banking franchise. If they share chief executive Eric Daniels’ optimism that bad loans have peaked, the mega-bank may finally start to deliver earnings too. There are cost savings from the HBOS merger, and reduced competition could spell meatier margins. One day, Lloyds’ dividend might reappear.”

And on the other of Lex’s hands:

“But loan losses could still rise, not least in HBOS’s private equity and property lending areas. The European Commission is likely to force disposals. Removing, say, the branch networks of Cheltenham & Gloucester and Lloyds in Scotland would lop some £300m off earnings. Eventually, the government will also sell its 43 per cent stake, a huge overhang. Finally, the UK economy, to which Lloyds is fully exposed, remains flat on its back.”

Lex, would you buy Lloyds shares?  We should be told.  

Bun rating: 200% bun. A bun filled with another bun, placed under Lex’s bottie for cushioning the effects of all that fence-sitting.

Read Full Post »

Lex – once rumoured to be authoritative

Alexander Justham of the FSA’s markets division has  said: “Spreading false or misleading rumours about companies, particularly in volatile or fragile market conditions, can be a very damaging form of market abuse. While we pursue individual cases of rumour-mongering, it is of equal concern to us that market practitioners handle rumours properly and avoid giving credibility to false stories.”

 There are a deluge of rumours in the financial press recently concerning the actual size, or existence of a potential Lloyds Group “arrangement fee” to exit from participation in the government’s Asset Protection Scheme. Lloyds Group have made no statement about the possible amout of an arrangement fee, so all comment must surely be rumour?

The FT’s report in today’s main paper states that

 ‘one person familiar with the government’s stance on the issue said a £1bn fee, which would be in lieu of the support that has already been provided to Lloyds was “definitely the floor”

and later in the same report:

“one person close to the government” described reports that the fee could be as high as £2bn as “understandable”

For some reason though, Lex in the same FT edition, quotes Bloomberg as the source of the rumour that “the Treasury may be eying as much as £2bn”.

As so often, I have been unable to find any substance in the Lex commentary. But since the actual amount, if any, of the ‘arrangement fee’, if there is one,  for Lloyds exiting, if it does,  the ASP,  is acutely material to the market value of Lloyds shares, this is one area where facts, not more speculation by once respected commentators are required.

Bun rating:  One person close to the kitchen is reported to have suggested that the bun, if there is one,  may contain 1% meat.

Read Full Post »

Lex – embedded in the new Pravda?

The military have learned to exert some control over media reports of their operations by ‘embedding’ journalists into operational units. Embedded journalists are not free to choose where they go and what they see, instead they have to remain with the unit they are embedded into and to the extent that they identify with the culture of the unit they are in, they lose a critical measure of objectivity.

Currently, the crisis of the financial establishment is largely reported in the financial press and financial columns by journalists effectively embedded in the financial establishment. This is exemplified clearly in the extent to which the Lex column has itself, become embedded in the financial establishment. Who benefits from the absence of  robust criticism of a rotten system?

Is The Financial Times is an example of a newspaper dependant upon the financial establishment for sources of news.  Is the F.T. the new  Pravda* ?

Today, Lex writes about the revival of the ‘carry trade’. The borrowing of low-yielding currencies to buy in a higher yielding one. After a rambling account of the current revival Lex concludes without an explanation. But Lex comes close to stumbling on the only rational explanation when he states:

“For the truth is that carry trade opportunities should not exist at all: the whole point of flexible exchange rates is to rebalance things when interest rates get out of whack”

There is only one explanation which fits and that is for one significant investing class, the carry trade is a penalty free trade.

A carry trade by a fund whose managers would keep 20% of any profit but would bear no personal losses if it became loss making.

It’s called a hedge fund stupid!

 *Pravda (Russian: Правда, “Truth”) was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991

Bun rating, 10% meat but no gut is embedded in the steak.

Read Full Post »

Lex, let Wittgenstein be your guide: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

 This is Lex on the 24^th September:

“But the frightening reality is that bank lending is contracting faster than the Fed is buying assets from the non-bank private sector, as part of its efforts to lower yields and revive failed markets. No matter how much the Fed seems to do, banks are not extending loans. US consumer credit, for example, fell at an annualised 10 per cent in July. Total debt outstanding is where it was a year ago.

Some wonder about the wisdom of attempting to mend the wreckage of a debt bubble with yet more debt. Even so, the economic consequences of shrivelling broad money do not bear thinking about – the long-term growth rate of M2, for example, is normally about 10 per cent per year. So forget about inflation. Goldman Sachs notes that inflation has the highest correlation to broader measures of money supply. Best ask for that pay rise now.”

Is Lex saying deflation is coming? I think so, but how can anyone know?

What I know is that there will be deflation, inflation or something in between, and that we will make heroes of the lucky pundits, economists, or punters who guessed right.

Bun rating: 99% bun from the harvest of 2012, if there is one.

Read Full Post »

Lex it’s the capital stupid!

Lex writes today about ‘Executive compensation’.   But ‘Executive compensation’ is to income, what Harry Potter is to literature.

Traditionally and in most people’s minds, income is earned from employment to fund current consumption, though some may be deferred (savings).

Anyone fortunate enough to have experienced a steady ascent from average income to say, ten times average income, will have discovered that income has limitations.  Each increase results in a diminishing pool of useful spending options.  But the main limitation of income is that you have to keep clocking in to get it.

The acquisition of and ownership of capital opens up many more possibilities.  Capital is necessary to live comfortably and be free of work. Capital buys status. Capital buys power and influence. Capital buys security.

The open goalpost financial culture has led to a new shadow industry.  This industry’s objective is the application of entrepreneurship by employees to find increasingly inventive ways  to extract capital from it for their personal use.

Lex suggests that shareholders can vote for change.  Lex : ‘it is helpful to establish principles on which shareholders can act, especially on dubious practices like golden parachutes, tax gross-ups, and personal perks’

But shareholders, in the real world Lex, are effectively disenfranchised (see my thoughts on this at  http://fabooks.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/the-disenfranchisement-of-capital-%e2%80%93-how-the-city-stole-your-vote/

We really need you to sharpen up – we private shareholders, who own most of quoted UK PLC – need a champion, not a lackey.

Bun rating, 95% dough, meat extracted 5%

Read Full Post »

Does Lex need a dentist?

Commercial property investment and development is a simple cyclical business. Success or failure depends upon timing entry and exit points in the cycle to gain maximum advantage from differences between interest rates and property capitalisation rates.

Rocket science it is not.

Very highly paid directors of commercial property PLCs should get the timing right. If they can’t do this, they shouldn’t be there, should they Lex? British Land share price reach £24 in the final quarter of 2007. A very good time to launch a rights issue, instead they waited as the share price sank steadily before launching a rights issue at 225p in February 2009 . In 2007 the commercial property market was at a high, the perfect time to dispose of investments, instead British Land waited until now to sell Broadgate.

British Land has now ‘off-loaded’ (Lex’s words, is he hinting at British Land’s alleged astuteness?) half of its Broadgate property to Blackstone. That is British Land has chosen to sell a substantial commercial property investment at the bottom of the market. Worse, the purchasers are doing what British Land should be doing at this stage of the cycle, taking a highly leveraged bet (Blackstone are only putting in £75 million of equity) on a cyclical recovery in commercial investment values, which has already commenced.

If ever shareholders needed an angry and unequivocal comment on the judgement of the directors of a major quoted property PLC it is now.

I looked in vain for some harsh words from Lex on behalf of the poor bloody shareholders, instead Lex presents the deal as nice for both parties. For British Land it is ‘insurance cost against further market falls’ and for Blackstone ‘hopes it has called the bottom of the market’

Bun rating, 90%. With flour suitable for toothless mouths, and 10% meat which may or may not be there depending on whether you are buying or selling.

Read Full Post »

Is Lex a lawyer?

Expressing an opinion can be risky, events may prove you wrong.  However. this can be avoided if you include most of the available opinion options in a commentary.

Welcome to the “no comment” commentary or:  “We might not always be right, but we are never wrong”

Here is my commentary on today’s Lex piece on Baidu. I have italicised the tentative interpretation of events, the sum of which is zero.

 “In the wake of the storm over “trading huddles”, there are new mutterings of investment bank tip-offs to preferred research clients. Consider Baidu, the $14bn Chinese search specialist listed on NASDAQ. The stock had an uneventful summer, beginning July at $301 and ending August at $330. At about 10am on Friday September 4, it suddenly surged against a flattish benchmark. By 1pm, the stock was up 5 per cent. Over the next three trading days, it continued to rise. On September 11, Goldman Sachs upgraded earnings estimates, with a higher target price – $475 – than any of the 23 brokers on the street. On Wednesday, Baidu broke through $400.

Other factors than a trading huddle might explain Baidu’s ascent. After the market close on September 3, Dow Jones Indexes announced that, as of September 18, Baidu would be one of three stocks promoted to its Bric 50 Index. On the morning of September 4, Google – Baidu’s big rival – also said its president of Chinese operations was stepping down.

Neither event provides wholly satisfactory explanations. The two other stocks attracting new demand from tracker funds, Brazil’s OGX and India’s Jindal Steel & Power, jumped less on September 4, and have since risen half as much. And while investors may be extrapolating gains for competitors at Google’s expense, China’s other leading US-listed portals, such as Sohu and Sina, have been left in Baidu’s dust.

Stock price moves, alone, are inconclusive. More decisively, Goldman says it had no “huddle” on September 4, when Baidu began to rise. Still, as the least blemished institution throughout the crisis, it remains an obvious target for grievances over some of the shady practices that fomented it. The vampire squid will be harpooned for a good while yet.”

 Bun rating - 98% dough, 1% meat, 1% grease.

Read Full Post »