The Grail American Beacon Large Cap ETF is now being offered to the public. While this would normally not be a big deal, this ETF is unique in that it is being billed as the first actively managed ETF (see WSJ article). There have been other active ETFs that diverged from a specific index, but the stocks choices for the fund were generated by computer models, as opposed to having a manager pick the stocks. In the tradition of lower fees for ETF, fees will be 0.79%, lower than a mutual fund, but still higher than a typical straight index fund ETF. Like other ETFs, the funds holdings will be made public daily, similar to mutual funds. Whether the ETF will be successful will depend on whether the company can avoid front-running of large public positions, and whether or not investors, who are already skittish and getting conservative, will be willing to invest with a product and a manager with an unknown track record. If history is any indication, the outlook is not good, especially given the timing.

The Worlds' Largest Hedge Fund (yes, that one, the one owned by you and I, the U.S. taxpayer) may now be adding additional securities to its portfolio. According to a recent Bloomberg article, the Fed is considering expanding the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) to include loans for the purchase of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS). As you may recall, the TALF was developed to provide low-cost Federal Reverse loans that would be used to buy securities backed by consumer debt - essentially using taxpayer money to provide debt to help other taxpayers purchase the debt of still other taxpayers that took out too much debt [Yes, I know, using debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt does not really make sense, but I digress]. Anyway, since the TALF has previously been used to purchase securities tied to automotive debt and credit cards by offering three-year loans, why not try it now using five-year loans for commercial real estate? After all, it has been so successful for the auto and credit card industries (GM, Chrysler, and a White House Presidential scolding of credit card executives, notwithstanding - tongue in cheek, of course).

All kidding aside, it is hoped that such loans will create buying pressure for CBMS, thereby decreasing yields - many of which are near junk levels, making it unprofitable for banks to make new loans at such high yields. The down fall, of course, is that with such loans having a five instead of three year maturity, it will be even harder for the Fed to timely withdraw money from the system in later years, just when inflation is likely to creep back with a vengeance as the economy begins to hopefully recover. While maybe too late, at some point we are going to have to ask, are we preventing collapse and saving entire industries, or are we simply, and needlessly, juicing the system in order to save a few select companies, all the while unnaturally speeding-up the recovery? If the later, we may want to start planning for the hangover now.

Bank stress tests are now being delayed until the end of next week, not Monday, May 4th, as originally planned (see Bloomberg article).

Source: CFA Smart Brief
The delay is apparently being made as bank executives debate the findings of the tests with examiners. Initial talk was for banks to have tangible common equity equal of about 4 percent of a bank’s assets, with Tier 1 capital coming in about 6 percent. The goal of some regulators is to have common equity to be the dominant element in the bank's primary capital. Regulators are now worried that disclosure of poor results could cause the stocks of the weaker institutions to fall. Really? Is this a surprise? To add insult to injury, banks with low equity will be pressured to add capital, either by raising funds from private investors or taxpayers, or by converting government-held or privately-held preferred shares to common equity. Such a move will dilute existing shares and is sure to produce an undesirable downward spiral, one of which could further weaken banks which have scored low on the stress tests - which will no doubt result in some other type of assistance. Apparently, the government now needs a little more time to untangle the web they have weaved.

The Treasury Department will need to borrow $361 billion in Q2, a record for the April-June quarter (see Investment News article), making for three straight quarters of record borrowing. The Treasury is also estimating it will need another $515 billion in Q3. The projected federal deficit for the year ending Sept. 30 will come to $1.75 trillion, another record, and quadruple the previous $454.8 billion deficit set last year - which was also a record. The national debt is currently at $11.1 trillion, but new limits will be raised to $12.1 trillion to account for the increased spending and borrowing.

The numbers are simply staggering, and make the recent proposal by the President to reduce the budget by $100 million seem to be just a drop in the bucket (see Washington Post article). In fact, regardless of your views on the $100 million, and spending cuts in general, a recent Youtube video gives you an idea of the size of the current budget, borrowing, and deficits, and shows you just how much (or little) $100 million amounts to (see YouTube video). Staggering indeed.

In the video below, Jim Cramer makes the case that hedge funds, and others for that matter, should consider going long select names given the recent positive (or less negative) macroeconomic data.

The flood of borrowing in the U.S. is eventually going to force us to pay the piper, with some arguing that the bill may come sooner than later. Others have argued for continued deflation over the next 12-18 months (see previous post). Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the move from deflation to inflation might not be as sharp as expected (see Bloomberg article). As it turns out, rising home vacancies across the U.S. are depressing rents, the largest item in the consumer price index released by the labor department. Home and apartment rents, as well as owners' equivalent rent, make up 30 percent of the CPI. As of the third quarter of 2008, the number of empty homes stood at 19 million, signaling that deflation may be here to stay for a while - or at least worries of inflation can wait until 2010, at the earliest. While not a perfect scenario, an environment with lower inflation will allow the Fed some extra time before it needs to start raising rates, thereby giving lower rates more time to do their magic without the threat of stagflation.

ETF Securities is launching an exchange for ETFs that includes a consortium of over 15 global banks and asset managers (see Hedge Fund Review article). The structure allows each exchange member to be able to participate in trading, market making, and index replication activities while allowing counterparty risk to be spread among multiple exchange members. By concentrating liquidity in a single location, ETFs that would normally be unavailable due to low demand and liquidity issues, can now be created and used for more specific purposes, such as hedge fund replication, without the same trading and credit worries. Certainly an interesting idea during a time when many are concerned about those on the other side of the transaction, especially when specialized, low liquidity securities are involved. This may be one way to help reduce both counterparty and liquidity risk for those researching and implementing hedge fund replication products.

Just yesterday I wrote a post about how the IMF is predicting that toxic debt will increase to nearly $4 trillion worldwide. Now, a recent report released by the Congressional Oversight Panel - those in charge of overseeing the TARP - indicates that $700 billion may be just the beginning in the U.S. (see ABC News article). To date, the TARP, Fed, and FDIC have set aside, lent, or spend more than $4 trillion.

New forecast from the International Monetary Fund are predicting that toxic debt will increase to nearly $4 trillion, due in part to the forecast of toxic assets in the U.S. rising from $2.2 trillion to $3.1 trillion (see Times Online article). Toxic assets across Europe and Asia will increase the total by another $900 billion. Given that "only" about $1.3 trillion has already been accounted for, the size of the money hole may be considerably larger than expected, requiring governments to bury more cash in an attempt to fill it up. As some have predicted (see Dealbook article), after the mortgage write-downs, banks will start unloading loans on the commercial side, and non-mortgage loans, such as auto and credit card loans, on the retail side. At some level governments are going to get spending fatigue and see increased levels of taxpayer revolt, or at least reach a level where saving the patient begins to bankrupt the caretaker and no longer makes sense.

There is an interesting article by Andrew Ross Sorkin over at the Dealbook blog (see article here), discussing how the FDIC is justifying its participation in the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). In effect, the FDIC is insuring the PPIP in the name of mitigating systemic risk. While the FDIC is not suppose to guarantee obligations of more than $30 billion, for the PPIP it is not considering total obligations, but contingent liabilities, or what it expects to lose - which conveniently, they project to be nothing. This form of logic essentially allows them to lend an unlimited amount of money. Yet under the PPIP plan, the public-private pool will be financed at a ratio of 6-to-1 public-to-private money, with half of the "1" coming from the private buyer, and the other half coming from the Treasury. With this debt being non-recourse and guaranteed by the government, the risk to the government (i.e., tax payers) would be significant and fully felt. In some ways, it appears that the program will either work wonderfully, or end horribly. Maybe I am missing something, but this sounds like as risky a leveraged bet as I have ever heard. Regrettably, this appears to be just another example of solving a problem caused by taking on too much debt and risk by, you guessed it, taking on too much debt and risk. Why does the term "double down" come to mind? I don't know about you, but I am hoping we hit 21. Otherwise, it may be a long bus ride home.

Vanguard is offering a small cap international ETF which tracks the FTSE Global Small Cap ex-U.S. Index (see Index Universe article). The fund considers both developed and emerging countries. While both "small cap" and "emerging" hint of increased risk, the ETF holds 2,100 different companies, providing broad exposure. The ETF also has a relatively small expense ratio at 0.38%, providing an inexpensive and diversified way to take on some international and emerging growth exposure.

In the wake of a nice bear rally, the SEC is once again discussing the reinstatement of the uptick rule, or some version of it (see Financial Times article). The rule was abolished in July 2007, but now various politicians are writing to SEC chairwoman, Mary Schapiro, asking that the rule be reinstated in order to produce an “unambiguous commitment to promulgate and enforce regulations that put an end to naked short selling”. Of course, naked short selling is already not allowed. While selling on a down-tick may have facilitated naked short selling, reinstating the uptick rule will not by itself rid the market of naked short-sellers. Enforcement of current rules might actually be the place to start. Until the SEC gets serious about investigating delivery failures, naked short selling will continue, regardless of changes in the uptick rule.

In addition politicians, the largest US exchanges have also recently written to the SEC asking that some version of the rule be put back into place, and further suggest that the new rule only allow short selling to be initiated by posting a quote for a short sale order that is priced more than the prevailing national bid. While such a change seems slightly different from the requirement of selling only on a new plus-tick or previous plus-tick (the current price being the same as the last, which was up), the change is significant. A value higher than the bid can still be below the ask. Not only are the prices lower than a plus tick (which is not that difficult to find for highly liquid stocks, even during a sell-off), selling between the bid and ask also makes the transaction less transparent. To make matters worse, the exchanges don't stop here, but also suggest that as an added precaution (guess for who), that a new type of circuit breaker be used that would initiate the rule only when the stock had a precipitous decline - defined as 10 percent. No more killing a stock in one or two days. Now it will take you at least 10 days. Not sure this is much of an improvement.

As for the motivation of the exchanges, you cannot really blame them for being proactive. While it is essential to keep the hedge funds and other drivers of order flow happy, helping to convince individual investors that it is safe to wade back in the waters will also be good for trading and revenue generation. I am sure that it is also hoped that any collaboration will make it more unlikely that the SEC will temporarily change the rules at a later date, selectively deciding what can and cannot be shorted. As for the SEC, they send the message that the days of the wild-west are over, and politicians get to take credit for putting pressure on the regulators and exchanges to look out for the little guy. Yet the changes will be ineffective at best - since naked short selling is not really directly addressed, and will most likely get worse given that shorting on a price higher than the bid is no improvement at all, but simply helps to mask the underlying transaction.

When I began to see the increased focus recently on finally bringing back the uptick rule, my initial thought was that if the rule was so vital, why has it taken this long to get back on the books? Looking at the latest collaborative effort, a little more delay might be in order.

A new proposed product from Macroshares will allow investors to purchase Up and Down ETF shares based on the movement of the S&P / Case-Shiller Composite Index (see WSJ article). Unlike some other similar ETFs, the proposed shares will not be backed by the physical asset, such as you might see with gold ETFs. Therefore, there will not be a specific artificial commodity bull market as the physical asset is bought to cover the demand for new shares (too bad for all those homeowners underwater). Here, the cash is put into government securities to ensure liquidity, creating a kind of zero-sum game as cash is moved from one account to another as housing prices, and the Case-Shiller index, move up and down in price. Obviously, if there is more demand for one type of share, this side of the bet is likely to trade for more than its net asset value, while the other side will trade at a discount. The zero-sum game structure also places a cap on profits since a positive move of 100 percent all but clears out the down shares, causing an automatic liquidation of shares.

While such a vehicle will get some attention given its tie in to the Case-Shiller index, not to mention offering a new and more liquid method for taking on housing exposure, it is likely that only a select set of builders and highly mobile executives on the coast who are looking to hedge their risks will find much use for this specific ETF (see article for past failed housing products). Speculators, of course, will be looking for significant daily liquidity before stepping their toes into the water. Time, and a potential housing recovery (or further bust), is probably needed before people will be encourage to bet with or against housing in this manner.

Large emerging market companies, such as Tata Motors, are taking advantage of the recent global downturn (see Economist article). Such companies are finding they can take advantage of their relative positions in making low-cost production models, due in part to their inexpensive labor. Even without global demand, growth in developing companies is still increasing, even though it has slowed, allowing such companies to stay afloat due to local demand. Finally, there is less international pressure on companies that can make it domestically, since multi-national companies are focusing their investment at home, and becoming more inward looking. Such a development can allow a company making greener technologies, such as Tata, to gain a stronger position, while also allowing new companies more opportunity to get started without high initial competitive pressures.

As a result of both decreasing home values and increasing legal fees, some banks are deciding to not take possession of properties in foreclosure (see New York Times article). In addition to legal fees, homes in foreclosure are seeing increasing maintenance fees, due in part of vandalism and neglect. The problem is that once the bank walks away, the name of the homeowner is still on the title, making them responsible for maintaining the home. Even if the home is to the point of being demolished, the homeowner may be responsible for the cost of demolition and clean-up. It looks like the banks are indeed getting some of their problem loans off the balance sheet, but this may not be the way the Fed and Treasury had in mind.

With leverage no longer propping up demand, many analysts point to signs that we are either currently in, or are approaching a deflationary period, with some expecting this period to last up to 12 to 18 months (see Investment News article). Gary Shilling, who has written a couple of books on the topic of deflation, believes the period of deflation could be much longer, on the order of 5-10 years. In addition to providing a signal of lower consumer spending, and subsequently lower GDP, deflation also increases the impact of debt in real terms for both corporations and consumers. As for investment plays, analysts recommend looking at utilities, agricultural, and high-quality and in-demand consumer staples, in edition to U.S. Treasury bonds and good old fashion cash.

It turns out that Lehman Brothers Holdings has negotiated the return of knickknacks that were sent to Barclays by mistake (see Bloomberg article). The items are being returned so they can be sold, with the proceeds being used to pay creditors, which currently have about $200 billion in unsecured liabilities. Items for possible sale include:

"1,630 green canvas duffle bags with Lehman ribbon, 353 green compact golf umbrellas, 75 Waterford Marquis Treviso crystal clocks, 682 white Lehman coffee mugs, 130 Swiss Army pens, an English beechwood-lined sterling silver box from 1902, 200 Lehman conference pens, 12 pairs of Links of London cufflinks, 24 Screwpull wine openers inscribed “LB,’ 24 Titleist PRO VI golf balls inscribed “LB,” 30 girl Teddy Bears, 18 large, ivory womens’ F&G stretch snap shirts and one Tiffany shooting star."

For just about $62,500,000 per item, you can help eliminate this debt, and help put this bankruptcy behind all of us. And look on the bright side: at least you get an umbrella or coffee mug in return. Let the bidding begin!

There is an interesting commentary by Michael Lewis (see the recent Bloomberg article). In the article, Lewis highlights how the hysteria over AIG is obscuring the real problems at the core of the current crisis, one of which are homeowners defaulting on homes they could not afford, and the government instead throwing money at opaque institutions, the workings of which no one really understands or can challenge. With one line, Lewis captures the problem and current situation:

"The guy who defaulted on mortgages on his six spec houses in the Nevada desert has turned himself into the citizen enraged by the bonuses paid to the AIG employees trying to sort out the mess caused by his defaults."

Here is hoping we can head Lewis's call for getting to the root of the problem, and quickly. It is not that we should turn a blind eye and forgive the guilty and the negligence on Wall Street, but instead should focus more of our energy on the solutions to our problems, beginning with identifying and admitting its root causes. As uncomfortable as it may be, for many of us the problem and solution begins with us.

The gap between the 10-year Treasury note and the 15-year / 30-year fixed-rate mortgages has narrowed, not surprisingly, since the Federal Reserve began actively buying mortgage securities in January (see Bloomberg article). The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage fell to 4.96 percent in January, the lowest it has been when considering data that goes back to 1971. Rates were recently at 4.98 percent. With a promise to increase mortgage-backed security purchases by an additional $750 billion, along with as much as $300 billion in Treasury purchases over the next 6 months, rates should continue to be under pressure in the near term. As the Fed continues to support low rates in hopes that consumers will either refinance or make a new home purchase, others are also encouraging consumers to purchase now, but for different reasons. Given the flood of money entering the market, consumers will eventually begin seeing inflationary pressures. Now may be the time to act while both rates and prices are low.

There is an interesting post over at the Business Insider Clusterstock blog regarding the bonus tax bill that recently passed in the House and is now on its way to the Senate. The bill was written mainly in response to the recent AIG bonuses that Congress wrote into the previous 1000+ page bill that no one read (or had time to read). Apparently, some members of Congress have finally gotten around to reading the bill they passed - or at least their constitutes did - causing outrage, both real and opportunistic. The bonus tax would essentially apply a 90% tax rate to bonuses paid at firms which have taken over $5 billion from the Government TARP program. While I cannot really disagree with trying to spend bailout money wisely, attacking the bonuses in this way after the same body passed them just weeks before seems not only wrong, but reactionary. In addition, you have to wonder why Congress decided on the 90 percent number. If the bonuses are unacceptable, why not 100 percent? Is 10 percent OK for poor performance, while 20 percent is an outrage? Furthermore, why are only big companies affected? Is it just the size, or is there some other guiding principal? In case you are interested, the companies that reach the $5 billion bailout threshold and are potentially affected by the bill include some of the usual suspects, along with a few others who want to get out of the lineup as quickly as possible:

• AIG
• Bank of America
• Citigroup
• General Motors
• GMAC Financial Service
• Goldman Sachs
• JPMorgan Chase
• Merrill Lynch
• Morgan Stanley
• PNC Financial Services Group
• US Bancorp
• Wells Fargo
  

While it looks like the bill will fail in the Senate, since it seems to be unconstitutional (kind of a sticking point), it certainly gives you an idea of which companies are likely to be the targets of future hostility against wealth creation. It also gives you an idea why more and more companies and states are looking to pay back TARP money as quick as possible, and reject any future stimulus and TARP-type funding. Investors can certainly expect the companies on this list to have difficulty going forward as their best talent moves to companies not affected by any future legislation impacting companies on the government dole. Their competitors, on-the-the-hand, are going to have a field day snatching up talent that is trying to escape lower paying government wages, along with the restrictions placed on such businesses.

A few weeks ago in a post I made a comparison of how both baseball and the markets had a steroid problem, although with the markets the steroids were in the form of leverage, loose lending standards, poor risk management, complex derivative products, unrealistic valuations, and unethical behavior, among others. Another comparison is unfortunately coming to bear. As with baseball, as long as the markets and the government continue to focus more on the juicers, and less on the solutions for fixing the current problems, both will continue to suffer and fail to reach their objective - reminding us of the opportunity that the markets have for making our lives better. Even though daily 450 foot home runs are a thing of the past, hitting a natural home run is still a thing of beauty, and something to be encouraged, both on the field and in the markets.