mrk

Japan's yen resumed its rise against higher-interest currencies Thursday, suggesting that the prospect of additional credit market losses continues to lower investors' confidence in global growth and performing assets.

The yen rose as institutional investors continued to decrease their use of the carry trade.

In a carry trade, investors, especially institutional investors, borrow funds in a country with a low interest rate (or borrowing cost) and buy assets in a country where returns are higher. The investment can take many forms, including stocks, bonds, funds, or even the higher-interest currency itself.

The yen strengthened about 1.6 yen to 160.71 versus euro, about 3 yen to 201.95 versus the British pound, and about 1 yen to 108.20 versus the dollar.

Another big mortgage write-off ahead?

Currency trader Andrew Resnick told BloggingStocks Thursday sentiment is building in the foreign exchange and other markets that there will be "another, major housing-related write-off by a bank or series of banks in the U.S. or U.K, or possibly Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) or Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) problems."

I am not sure that Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) will make it through the month as public companies. Barron's quoted an anonymous senior official -- who sounds an awful lot like Hank Paulson to me -- that unless Fannie and Freddie could raise at least $10 billion each, the government would bail them out while wiping out common shareholders and eliminating the preferred dividend. Since then, investors have been dumping shares of Fannie and Freddie like there's no tomorrow.

At 12:15 this afternoon, unless there's a last minute cancellation, I will appear on CNBC's Power Lunch to discuss the winners and losers from the wipe out of Fannie and Freddie shareholders. In a nutshell, the winners are investors who shorted Fannie and Freddie years ago and are now reaping enormous profits. I also think that some Wall Street investment banks will win big as they get the job of selling off Fannie and Freddie's pieces. The losers are their biggest common and preferred shareholders -- including some well known mutual funds.

The winners are:

• Jim Rogers, Rogers Holdings - Rogers originally shorted Freddie and Fannie in March 2006 and appeared on Bloomberg on November 20, 2007 to discuss why he did it and where he thought their stocks would go.
• Doug Noland, Prudent Bear - As I posted, since the late 1990s, Noland's research has concluded that Freddie and Fannie would "shudder" when the US credit bubble eventually burst. Noland has profited from the short bets he made -- but he says it is emotionally painful to watch them fail.

Upset about paying $3.80 a gallon for gasoline? Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) CEO, argued that it was all supply and demand so quit your bellyaching. I thought speculation was playing a big part -- traders who bought oil and sold the dollar to drive up the price. Indeed, a few months agao I found a source who thinks 60% of the volume was from speculators.

Seems even that was too low an estimate. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has analyzed the books of oil traders and calculated that 81% of oil trading volume was conducted by speculators.

Guess who broke open the opportunity for oil speculators to trade oil in a loosely regulated fashion? Goldman. The Post reports that In 1991, its J. Aron unit argued that "it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms."

Few would deny that the new U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, will face a plethora of concerns and problems after reciting the oath of office in January 2009.

One issue that sort of presents the 'problems panorama' in a snapshot has, curiously, received light news coverage lately -- is the U.S. budget deficit.

Time was, just a short decade ago, the federal budget was in surplus. However, in 2001 a federal tax cut occurred. That fact, combined with required spending for the war on terror / Iraq War, and the absence of a tax increase to pay for that increased spending, has primarily led to a projected $553 billion deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, and a $403 billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office research (pdf).

Three factors that could balloon the deficit

In the view of many, the existing deficit is large -- but still manageable -- in the context of a $2.9-3.0 trillion federal budget. However, three factors could markedly increase the budget deficit in the immediate years ahead, and in doing so add to the new president's woes, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks.

First, there's the U.S. economy. If it falls into a recession (if it hasn't already), federal receipts (such as corporate and individual income taxes) will decline from current projected levels, and social program costs will increase, "adding $20-$50 billion to the deficit," Felson said.

As he prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's allies in organized labor are worried that he is becoming too friendly with Wall Street types such as former Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) senior executive Robert Rubin.

According to Bloomberg News, a recent presentation by Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO argued that unfettered global traded and inadequate government regulation resulted in lost manufacturing jobs. "It will do us little good if, when the next Democrat moves into the White House, Wall Street takes command of our country's economic policy," Bloomberg quotes Trumka's presentation as saying. The story adds that there is no doubt that Trumka is taking a shot at Rubin.

Trumka is unapologetic. The AFL-CIO already is flexing its political muscle and began looking at candidates for cabinet posts including the Treasury and Energy Departments along with the Federal Reserve. Obama's advisors deny that Rubin or anyone else has any particular sway over his economic policies. But there definitely is a tilt toward the center going on.

Want a classic example of how the real estate slump is affecting not only the construction industry and home owners, but also states and municipalities, as well?

Consider the plight of the nation's largest city, the City of New York.

Wall Street's mortgage losses have ballooned to such a degree that some firms may pay small or no taxes for years, Bloomberg News reported. That's right: no taxes for years.

Rising tax revenues, no more

For much of the current decade, indeed for much of the 1990s as well, the city could count on rising tax revenue from Wall Street firms -- based on increased securities industry business -- as a starting point for the city's budget. Not now: the city, which derives about 20% of its revenue from Wall Street businesses, is projecting a decline in revenue from Wall Street firms -- a contraction that is expected to widen the this year's $1.5 budget deficit in fiscal 2009 to $2.3 billion next year, fiscal 2010, and then to $5.96 billion in fiscal 2011 budget deficit, Bloomberg News reported. The city's budget for fiscal 2009 is $59.1 billion.

The Wall Street recession has put the social service goals of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on hold, for the most part. Bloomberg has already asked city department and agency heads to implement a 6.4% spending cut; he will likely ask department heads to identify other cost savings of up to 3%, should revenues continue to come in below projections.

Investment banks are beginning to rethink their commitments to doing business in Russia. The New York Times reports that many investors believe the risks of doing business in Russia are beginning to exceed the benefits. Maybe that is what Russia intends. Once western investors have put their money in, why not push them out and take their property?

Here are some examples:

• Mechel - The Times reports that Vladimir Putin's criticism of the CEO of Mechel, a coal mining and steel company, wiped out billions of dollars of its stock market value
• BP-TNK - The CEO and other western executives of BP-TNK, BP's (NYSE: BP) joint venture in Russia, were shoved out under pressure from the government and BP's Russian partners.
• Declining stock market - The Russian stock market is down 25% in the last two months, alone.
• Evaporating investment banking business - According to the Times, "Investment banking revenue from Russia was $148 million from mid-July to now. That is down from $260 million from mid-June to mid-July."

The cold war between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and the unions is heating up again.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the world's largest retailer had warned employees that a Democratic president would back the Employee Free Choice Act, a law that would make it easier for unions to organize workers, which the company opposes. The paper now is saying that the union groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the matter, which they claim violates federal law.

Of course, this is a brilliant public relations move by the unions. First of all, the FEC is as toothless as some Wal-Mart greeters. Even if the FEC finds that Wal-Mart broke the law, the worst that the company will get is a slap -- make that a tickle -- on the wrist. That may not even happen until well into an Obama administration, which brings up my next point.

Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don't the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today's results won't last.

Start with a few speculative stocks. Add a distressed-debt corporate bond portfolio, and two quantitative-based hedge funds, and a momentum-based hedge fund for the British pound/Japanese yen currency pairing.

Sounds like a typical, assertive portfolio for a wealth management group or, perhaps, for an accredited investor.

But a public pension fund?

Public pension funds in the United States are increasing bets on high-risk hedge funds and real estate in an attempt to fill deficits in retirement plans and recover ground, due to the worst performance by pension funds in six years, Bloomberg News reported Thursday.

Public funds, which manage more than $2.45 trillion in assets, are trying to reverse losses averaging 5.5% for the year ended June 30, according to Merrill Lynch data, and stem the tide of deficits, Bloomberg News reported. The State of New York's comptroller is asking its Legislature to increase its alternative investment spending cap; in February, the State of South Carolina upped its alternate investment / private equity / real estate cap to 45% from 0%.

'Investment distortions of the very worst sort'

Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Thursday he doesn't like the sound of the new stance by state / local governments, if the aforementioned represents a trend.

"I view it as another manifestation of the U.S. stock market slump," Langan said. "The underperformance of stocks and the drive for outsized return on equity is leading to investment distortions of the very worst sort. We saw this in the mortgage market with their securities. It got to a point that if the interest rate was high enough, banks made the loan. We've seen it in oil, where the unattractiveness of stocks led institutions to dive into oil futures, driving up prices well above historic gains. And now it looks like public pension funds are catching the bug or flu."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is not the most intriguing Speaker of the House to come along, and she hasn't carved the high-profile that predecessors like Newt Gingrich did.

But I don't think anyone expected her book to flop this badly. Drudge Report reports that Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters sold just 2,737 copies in its first week. That's bad enough to make it the 41st bestselling nonfiction book of the week and the reviews on Amazon have been equally appalling. 131 reviewers have given it an average rating of 1.5 stars, all the more impressive give that it's not possibly to rate a book 0 stars.

Publisher's Weekly's generally positive review sums up why the book hasn't sold well: "Pelosi's book is a simply crafted acknowledgment of the support of her family, mentors and helpful colleagues without rhetorical flourishes, insider scandal or intimate revelations-a gentle account from a tough politician."

Boring! People reading books by politicians want to hear about scandal.

Perhaps the sequel should be called Know Your Limits: Just Because You're a Successful Politician Doesn't Mean People Want to Know Your Life Story.

The Washington Post reports that the number of bank failures has been surprisingly low. But the crunch count is likely to grow as the problem bank list triples from 90 to 300 over the next three years. Meanwhile, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) could run out of money to pay off depositors of future failed banks unless it raises its deposit insurance rates from their current 5.4 cents per $100 deposits.

But the most interesting question is whether the White House is propping up banks that should fail so that it can push the biggest part of the cleanup into the lap of the next President. It is certainly bringing out all the biggest economic guns to delay the inevitable reckoning from the $8 trillion credit collapse. It spent $29 billion bailing out Bear Stearns, sent $160 billion worth of checks to taxpayers, cut interest rates from 5.25% to 2%, and seems belatedly to be enforcing regulations against manipulation of oil trading.

The Post quotes industry experts who think that the FDIC is propping up many banks. For instance, Bert Ely of Ely & Co., a bank consulting firm in Alexandria, VA, told the Post, "They are dragging their feet in forcing these banks to reserve realistically. Some of these banks could have been closed two or three quarters earlier." And Ken Thomas, a lecturer in finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Post that the FDIC's foot dragging would only cost taxpayers more in the long run. Thomas said, "In some of these cases, I believe regulators should act sooner than later to prevent future losses to the fund."

Last Friday's rally was heartening, but why did it happen? I am guessing that a drop in oil and a rise in the dollar were helpful ingredients. At $115.32, oil is down 22% from its $147.27 a barrel high, and at $1.49, the dollar has strengthened 11% from its low of $1.60 per euro. But what was behind those moves? Can those factors persist? What happens to stocks if they sink?

The dollar/euro is moving based on relative economic strength and inflation policy. Some think that the dollar strengthened over recent weeks because Europe appears to be heading into a recession and the U.S. has already been in one since the fourth quarter of 2007. If the U.S. is further along, it may begin its recovery sooner.

As far as inflation policy, the U.S. has kept rates at 2%, while Europe appears more likely to raise rates to fight inflation. Bloomberg News reports that European Central bank council member Klaus Liebscher said "policy makers remain focused on the 'worrying' level of inflation." The euro has rebounded to $1.50 on this announcement.

Economists think they have most of the data they need to forecast the price of oil: The dollar is rising; consumption in the US is falling; production out of OPEC is steady; the drop in crude has driven many speculators out of the game; unrest is receding in Nigeria and Venezuela; huge deposits have been found off Brazil; the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico has not disrupted production.

War is harder to predict, but there it is in Georgia. Russia seems intent on destroying the military of its small neighbor state. The U.S. is pushing to keep Russia from escalating the conflict, which is driving extreme tension between Russia and NATO. Russia is an important supplier of crude, and it could decide to use that as leverage to keep the West out of the dust up.

There is some speculation that the Russian government would like to cripple other countries that share it borders to build a geographic "buffer" to its south. NATO may be forced to step in because some of these countries are close to its members' territories.

War is hard to predict and the oil market does not like the unpredictable. Oil prices are about to rise and could get much higher.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

MSNBC reports that two-thirds of people surveyed by Pew are hurting thanks to flat incomes and rising prices. I've posted on this here, here, and here. But MSNBC's stories of how these numbers affect families make for compelling reading. This could be the key issue that determines the outcome of the 2008 elections.

Pew's statistics suggest that rising prices and flat income are a chief concern for U.S. citizens. In July, 45% of the public -- compared to 24% in February -- say rising prices are the biggest economic problem. 66% say their incomes are lagging behind their living costs. Gasoline prices are hovering below $4 a gallon while prices of fruits and vegetables have risen 7.6%, dairy products have jumped 9.2%, and cereal costs 10.4% more.

Here are three of MSNBC's stories:

• School teacher. Carol Netzel, a retired elementary school teacher, says people feel as though their incomes don't cover their growing expenses. MSNBC quotes Netzel as saying: "It doesn't matter what the economists say. All the people I chat with at the grocery store, the gas station, shopping for school clothes, all are feeling very depressed because of the beating their budgets are taking."

If Barack Obama is receiving advice from "my pal Warren" then he must not be listening. There is no way that Warren Buffett, the national debt hawk, would support Obama's stupid idea of giving another $1,000 back to every family in America. It is reported that he would pay for this by creating a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

This give-away program is an attempt to buy votes plain and simple. It would add to the national debt, discourage oil companies from investing and worse it would handicap American companies more than others and mortgage more of our children's futures.

The last thing the people of the United States need is more deficit spending. If we did tax oil companies, which I am against, I would only support using the funds for expanding education, research and development in science and engineering with the goal of maintaining our waning leadership in technology.