Categories
Articles

General Growth’s Debtholders Trying to Avoid Chapter 11

This is the most backwards thing you’ll ever see. It also gives more confidence of the equity surviving even should they be forced to file.

From the WSJ:

But a bankruptcy filing isn’t imminent for the mall giant, according to people familiar with the matter, and General Growth’s (GGP) ability to remain out of bankruptcy shows the unusual dynamic between lenders and distressed companies in the recession-ravaged commercial-real-estate market.

Bondholders have refrained from forcing mall owner General Growth Properties into bankruptcy court, despite lack of a deal on a debt extension.

Under normal circumstances a company with as much past-due debt as General Growth would have been forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection by now. Creditors so far have been willing to let deadlines pass because they believe there is little to be gained and much to be lost through a bankruptcy. General Growth’s mall operations are stable and many bondholders hope for a greater recovery outside of bankruptcy court.

“This is really rare,” said Kevin Starke, an analyst at CRT Capital Group LLC, a research company that tracks distressed securities. “It is corporate-bond limbo like I’ve never seen before.”

This piggybacks on the thesis laid out here recently that lenders want to avoid a Chapter 11 here at almost all costs.

It continues:

Many creditors say that General Growth’s management is doing a good job running the company. Its 200 U.S. malls, a portfolio second in size only to Simon Property Group Inc., generate enough cash to cover interest on the debt. But its properties are overleveraged and it lacks the borrowing capacity to retire those debts as their principal comes due.

“There’s no question that General Growth is a liquidity issue,” said Jeff Spector, an analyst with UBS AG. “The properties, for the most part, aren’t broken.”

General Growth, based in Chicago, isn’t the only real-estate borrower that is getting a reprieve from its lenders these days. Hundreds of property owners have had loans come due without a repayment made in recent months. But most lenders have agreed to extend loan terms, hoping that the credit market will improve.

For those who did not see it previously, here is the legal basis should it go into bankruptcy for the equity staying in tact. The point that cannot be forgotten here is the company is technically solvent and that alone separates this Chapter 11, should it occur, from 99% of all other Chapter 11’s when the companies entering them are insolvent.

It continues:

A person familiar with the bondholder talks said that, while some creditors are angry, none appears ready to insist on an involuntary bankruptcy petition yet. It is possible that bondholders didn’t go along with the consent solicitation primarily because they feared that making such a pledge would reduce the value of their bonds.

General Growth has told lenders that they’ll have more influence over the outcome if it restructures outside of bankruptcy court, according to people familiar with the talks. A bankruptcy filing could force the company to liquidate its assets for less than the whole company would be worth if it remained a single entity for the long term, these people said.

Another deterrent to an involuntary petition is that bankruptcy wouldn’t bring immediate payment of General Growth’s debts. “It’s such a large company that the bankruptcy would definitely last at least a couple of years,” said Heidi Sorvino, a lawyer leading the bankruptcy practice of law firm Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP.

The timeframe could be shorter if General Growth did a prepackaged bankruptcy in which the creditors agree to terms prior to the company entering bankruptcy, Ms. Sorvino added. But wrangling so many creditors without the threat of a judge making and enforcing decisions is “almost impossible,” she said.

This is the classic “everyone wins” or “everyone loses”scenario. Banks facing liquidity issues cannot have billions tied up in a Chapter 11 proceeding for years. The viability of common equity, while in my opinion is safe in an 11, can never be assured once the courts get involved. By restructuring out of court and now, everyone wins…

Boilerplate ending for this investment:
Now as usual, a warning. I know people have been following into this investment. If you do, you must be prepared to lose all of it. There is no guarantee of the above outcome. Buying this stock now is essentially buying a call option on the company’s survival. It is hits, you win big, very big. If not, what you invested is worth nothing. I believe the above scenario plays out, I am also not going to be broke should it not.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GGP

Categories
Articles

Tuesday’s Links

Lead Paint, CDS, Shareholders, Blowing up Wall St.

– Can we just stop this insanity?

– How to manipulate stock prices

– If nothing else comes of this crisis, more shareholder activism would be welcomed

– This is a sobering article


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Is Sears Holdings the Beneficiary of Circuit City’s Demise?

Some interesting trends have emerged since February. Remember when looking at these numbers that Circuit City began the liquidation process in late January.

Here is the full month of February 2009 (click to enlarge):

Week ending 3/7: (click to enlarge)

Week ending 3/14: (click to enlarge)

Here is the most recent weeks data from 3/21 (click to enlarge):

Let’s look at numbers 2 and 3, Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT). They have remained stable since February with very little fluctuation in numbers. Best Buy (BBY), Amazon (AMZN) and Sears (SHLD) is where it gets interesting. Sears has seen a 14% jump in traffic since February, growing each week. Now, my first thought was that this is coming at the expense of Sears’ other owned site, Kmart. A quick check there however shows that Kmart has also seen growth since February albeit less at 6%.

Best Buy has seen traffic fall 15% and Amazon has seen a 22% fall in traffic.

Why?

Now, Best Buy recently reported better than expected numbers for the quarter ending Jan. 2008.
From CNN Money:

In a forecast that seemed to lift investor spirits, the company said it expects to earn $2.50 to $2.90 a share for fiscal 2010. Analysts have forecast a profit of $2.45 a share, according to FactSet.

U.S. sales of mobile phones and accessories saw a triple-digit comparable- store gain while computer repair business saw a low double-digit increase and warranty sales, a low single-digit increase as Best Buy rolled out a premium Geek Squad protection plan. They were among categories that are more profitable for the company, helping to offset less profitable products such as notebook computers, analysts have said.

While the recession, rising job losses and decreased access to credit have all hurt Best Buy, the retailer is expected to gain further market share after its smaller electronics-chain rival Circuit City Stores Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection and liquidated its stores.

It should be noted that the Circuit City liquidation would not be baked into these numbers as it began in earnest after the reported quarters numbers were finished. So, where did the Circuit City web traffic go? The general consensus of the investing community as stated in the above quote was that Best Buy and Amazon would be the main beneficiaries of the Circuit City liquidation.

Based on the above charts, it appears shoppers may have skipped Amazon and Best Buy and gone to Sears. Let’s look closer:

Now, Sears has probably garnered increased internet traffic from it recent appliance push (coupled with people getting tax return money back to buy them) but one cannot escape the oddity of the timing of its traffic increase coupled with the dramatic decreases at both electronics competitors while Wal-Mart and Target held constant.

One also could assume that lawn and garden played a role as both Lowes (LOW) and Home Depot (HD) saw gains. While some of this is surely in the numbers, Sears would not expect to see the same surge as a Home Depot or Lowes because lawn season is coming around. Sears is not as large a player in the field and have smaller offerings than they do, especially when it comes to plants and yard items. The numbers here also show Sears/Kmart outpaced both home Depot and Lowes, not what one would expect unless there was a another reason.

That still leaves us with Sears’ large gain (+20% Sears/Kmart combined) corresponding to the large declines at both Amazon (-22%) and Best Buy (-15%) that cannot be explained away easily. Had they both kept share close or above previous levels, then the Sears gain could be said to be purely appliance/lawn and garden. But they didn’t, so we can’t explain it that way. Sears must be making gains in electronics traffic.

We have essentially 7 weeks of data in these results and no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it. But, the results do seem to be running contrary to what people were expecting to happen when Circuit City finally closed the door and does mean it requires close monitoring.

Now, this all means very little if Sears is not converting this traffic into sales and we will not know this until May as Sears does not report monthly numbers. This trend does bear very close attention. Should it continue, it is is very good news for Sears shareholders as it means the effort Lampert and the rest of the folks there have put into the internet properties may be paying off.

Last weeks data will be out soon and we can check back then …

Data from Hitwise

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long WMT, SHLD, none

Categories
Articles

Cramer on Sears Holdings

Okay, saw what you want about Jim Cramer but he makes some very good points here about Sears Holdings.

For those inclined to skip the video, here are the main points:

1- Sears is levered to housing. When that stabilizes, Sears turns. Read this from 2007 on the subject
2- Great brands. More on that here
3- Naked shorts. Read more about that here

As an aside, I so much prefer the thoughtful Cramer to the character he plays on his nightly show…

Lampert’s recently released 2009 shareholder letter:


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long SHLD

Categories
Articles

Mondays Links

Options, Biden’s Daughter, Coup, Sheila Blair

– If you are thinking about or so trade options, your daily reading ought to start with Adam

– So, should we expect the same press coverage Jena Bush got for drinking a gin and tonic or Palin’s daughter? Or is it “hands off” now it is a Democrat’s kid?

Frightening

– Bronte makes some very salient points.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Sunday Viewing

I am liking Rep. Ryan more every time he speaks..


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Weekend Viewing

Here is a must see video…………….


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

On Wall St. Media Talking General Growth Properties.

Doug at Wall St. Media was nice enough to have me for a chat yesterday to talk about General Growth Properties (GGP).

Could be a big weekend for shareholders.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GGP

Categories
Articles

The Commercial Real Estate Time Bomb

Tick, tock goes the clock…

Here is 2009 outlook for commercial real estate from Deutche Bank. It does notr paint a pretty picture. Run through it (it is mostly graphs)

Commercial Real Estate Outlook 2009 Commercial Real Estate Outlook 2009 todd sullivan Dire…

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business Presentations & Slid commercial real esta

So? What to make of it? Short answer there is still pain hovering out there for banks if they allow these loans to default…..if.

First we need to segment to commercial owners into categories. The owner who holds mortgages on a single strip mall in Des Moines vs. the REIT that hold 100 or more properties. The little guys who gets in trouble? Sorry bud but you are cooked. There will be no help for you from either the banks or the Feds. But, you big boys out there are going to be spared OR at least kept on life support.

Why? Scale. Let’s say we have three property owners in a town. One guy holds 20 properties and the others each own one or two. All three are currently delinquent. Who does the bank care the most about? Of course, the big guy. If he is forced into bankruptcy, the entire town’s property values are destroyed. The chance of the bank recovering anywhere near their investment is virtually nothing. Now if they refinance his loans (extend maturity to lowers payments so they are covered by current rents) and let the other two go into bankruptcy, the market takes a small hit while it waits for the economy to come back. As the economy comes back rents rise and, property values rise with it and the bank gets made whole on its loans. The key point here is that the market survives.

But, with banks already strapped, how can we be sure there will be funds available to refinance?

From the WSJ:

Commercial real-estate debt is potentially more dangerous to the financial system than debt classes such as credit cards and student loans because of its size. The Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group, estimates that commercial real estate in the U.S. is worth $6.5 trillion and financed by about $3.1 trillion in debt. Partly because the commercial real-estate debt market is nearly three times as big now as in the early 1990s, potential losses in dollar terms loom larger.

According to an analysis of bank financial reports by The Wall Street Journal, the broad shift to real-estate lending can be seen by comparing commercial real-estate loans — including both mortgages and construction loans — with banks’ so-called Tier 1 capital, a key indicator of a bank’s ability to absorb losses. In 1993, less than 2% of the nation’s banks and savings institutions had commercial real-estate exposure exceeding five times their Tier 1 capital. By the end of 2008, that had risen to about 12%, or about 800 financial institutions. A higher ratio means a thinner cushion for loans that go sour.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury are moving to adapt a funding program to make it attractive for investors to buy debt backed by office buildings, hotels, stores and other income-producing property. The program, called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, was begun to finance purchases of debt backed by consumer credit, and officials will expand its use to include commercial-property debt.

See, if CRE goes bust, all the aid to banks that has been doled out up to this point gets flush away. It is in both the banks AND the government’s best interest to assure that does not happen. Keeping it from happening in CRE is also FAR easier than the mortgage market. Rather than dealing with millions of individual homeowners, only a dozen or so REIT’s must be helped.

So, this all leads us to General Growth Properties (GGP). It looks increasingly like two or three debt holder are going to force (or allow) it to file Chapter 11 reorganization today (this weekend) after the 5pm deadline. If (when) that happens, what is in the best interest of all? You see GGP is the largest mall owner in the US. That means that whatever happens to it, effects the entire CRE market in the US.

Because of that, a liquidation cannot happen. There are not buyers that can purchase enough of the properties with credit markets in their current state to avoid a total collapse of the CRE market. With $3.1 TRILLION of loans out there for it, it sort of makes the $50 billion given to Citi (C) look like change found in the sofa and gives us some proportion of the potential damage. With mark-to-market accounting rules, the destruction of GGP debtors would cascade to all lenders and make what homeowners did to banks look like “the good ‘ole days”.

How bad could it be? Look at the following chart from Goldman Sachs (GS).

Click to enlarge:

If you look at the third column you’ll see that most banks are still carrying commercial loans at 99% or higher. This means they haven’t even begun to write-down these loans. It also gives them more impetus to do anything possible to avoid having to do this..translation? Refinance..

As an aside. It would seem that Wells Fargo (WFC) has been the most honest with its marks (that being relative to the others). It also means they may be done marking down assets. A lot of “mays” but worth watching.

Now is the problem with GGP that the business is going under? No. If the debt is refinanced, GGP can pay its interest from its operation (here is case law to support this). Don’t forget, it did as of the last quarter have a 92% occupancy rate. That is sure to fall but is at the top of the industry. If the debt can be refinanced, everyone is made whole and we now have the largest player in the market stabilized and provide a blueprint for the rest of the industry.

One cannot underestimate the positive effect on the CRE market as a whole should that happen.

Well, if all that is true, why hasn’t it happened yet? TALF just went into effect and while it appears it will be expanded to include CRE, that has not officially happened yet. That is why we are seeing extension after extension. Once it comes into effect, we ought to see movement here.

Now as usual, a warning. I know people have been following into this investment. If you do, you must be prepared to lose all of it. There is no guarantee of the above outcome. Buying this stock now is essentially buying a call option on the company’s survival. It is hits, you win big, very big. If not, what you invested is worth nothing. I believe the above scenario plays out, I am also not going to be broke should it not.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GGP, WFC, none

Categories
Articles

The Other Side: Wesbury Says Rally Is For Real

In the interest of full information for readers, here is the other side of the bear argument. Brian Wesbury says this is no “dead cat bounce” but the end of the bear market.

Readers here know I am not as optimistic and think we have downside in store for the market.

My gut tells me we both are. I see short term downside and then a gradual run up. As for the when and how much? Don’t know the answers to those but I do have the cash waiting to buy when I’m comfortable.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Categories
Articles

Friday’s Links

AIG, Soros, Congress, Football

– Top Execs quitting at AIG might cause the whole thing to collapse. Nice job Congress

– I often disagree with him but on this he is right.

– As if we have not had enough hypocrisy out of them

– Call me crazy but I going to say the Senate has more important things to worry about that football?

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Ackman Sends Letter To Target CEO

Let’s put aside the fact Ackman seems to know Target’s bylaws better than they do (or at least pretend to). In the revised 13D/ a just filed, Ackman states:

Subsequent to the delivery of the Original Notice, we received a telephone call from your outside counsel informing us that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) currently consists of 12 directors and that only four directors are up for election at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

As we have explained in detail in a separate letter from Mr. Ackman to Mr. Gregg W. Steinhafel, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, based on our review of the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation and its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are of the view that size of the Board remains at 13 members. While the resignation of Mr. Robert Ulrich on January 31, 2009 created a vacancy in Class III of the Board, the size of the Board has not changed.

This is pretty simple. Target, recognizing that Ackman is likely to win seats on the Board, is trying to shrink it to minimize whatever effect his nominees may have. But, if you are a shareholder you have to ask, why? Ackman left shareholders of McDonalds (MCD), Chipolte (CMG), Wendy’s (WEN) and Tim Hortons (THI) far better off than when he arrived. Shareholder also have to ask, if this guy is the largest shareholder of the company, aren’t his interests totally aligned with ours?

Here is the letter Ackman sent the CEO Greg Steinhafel:

Exhibit 99.1

March 26, 2009
Gregg W. Steinhafel
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

Re:Number of Directors for Election at the 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Dear Gregg:
On March 16, 2009, affiliates of Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. delivered a Notice of Nomination to Target Corporation proposing to nominate five individuals for election as directors of Target at the Company’s 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The same day, Target issued a press release indicating that its board is comprised of 12 directors and that the Company is nominating only four directors for election at the 2009 Annual Meeting. Subsequently, we received a telephone call from your outside counsel informing us that the Target Board currently consists of 12 directors and that only four directors are up for election at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

We disagree with the Company’s position on this issue. We have reviewed Target’s SEC filings and have found no disclosure to the effect that the size of the Target Board has been changed from 13. We are aware that Mr. Ulrich resigned in January, but a board does not automatically shrink as a result of a resignation; rather, a vacancy is created, in this case, a vacancy in Class III of the Target Board.

Our view is informed by the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, which provide that only the shareholders may reduce the size of the Target Board. Specifically, Article VI of Target’s Restated Articles of Incorporation provides the following:

“The business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of a Board of Directors consisting of not less than five nor more than twenty-one persons, who need not be shareholders. The number of directors may be increased by the shareholders or Board of Directors or decreased by the shareholders from the number of directors on the Board of Directors immediately prior to the effective date of this Article VI; provided, however, that any change in the number of directors on the Board of Directors (including, without limitation, changes at annual meetings of shareholders) shall be approved by the affirmative vote of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the votes entitled to be cast by the holders of all then outstanding shares of Voting Stock (as defined in Article IV), voting together as a single class, unless such change shall have been approved by a majority of the entire Board of Directors.” (emphasis added)

Article VI was adopted at Target’s 1988 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Immediately prior to the effectiveness of Article VI, the size of the Target Board was 13. Under Article VI any reduction in the size of the Target Board requires a shareholder vote. As the Company’s shareholders have not been asked to vote on any matter since the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, we believe that the size of the Target Board remains at 13. While Mr. Ulrich’s resignation created a vacancy on the Target Board, the size of the Target Board has not been changed to our knowledge.

If the Company continues to believe that the size of the Target Board is 12 and that only four seats are up for election at the 2009 Annual Meeting, we believe that the interests of the Company and its shareholders would be best served by a quick, low-cost resolution of this issue. Therefore, we would suggest that we jointly submit the issue to a binding arbitration that will take place in Minnesota and will be decided by a mutually acceptable arbitrator, pursuant to the AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration.

If, on the other hand, you agree with our interpretation of the Articles of Incorporation, you can simply nominate a fifth director.

It is in all of our interests to resolve this issue promptly. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

/s/ William A. Ackman
William A. Ackman

So, what then is the problem with management? Why are they stonewalling every idea Ackman has to create shareholder value? Do they have other plans? If they do, none have been announced.

Here is the reason. Management is entrenched at Target. They have all been for for a long time. None of them have any experience running the type of organization Ackman is proposing (the Board members he has nominated do) and what they are fighting is the feeling that should he get his way, they become less important or worse, irrelevant. What they fail to realize is by simply dismissing him out of hand, they are doing just that.

How long do they think shareholders will sit for a fallen and stagnant stock price before they want to “see what the other guy can do”? Is there any plan to reverse the same store sales decline that is now over a year old? Shareholders surely have noticed that Wal-Mart (WMT) shareholders are not suffering the same fate.

Current management has done a fantastic job brining the company to it current state, a well respected retailer, probably the second in the nation. But, they are stuck and sitting back waiting for the economy do lift them out of their funk will not cut it with shareholder as they watch Wal-Mart’s taillights disappear into the distance.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long MCD, WMT, none

Categories
Articles

Jim Rogers: "Invest in Farms"

Jim Rogers on Fox this am talking commodities.

For those who want to follow rogers, The Rogers Van Eck Hard Assets Producers Index (RVEI) gives investors a chance to ride the commodities bull by accessing a universe of producers from all over the world. Most of the index’s components are producers of raw materials for agriculture, alternative energy, base and industrial metals, energy, forest products and precious metals.

To invest with it, Market Vectors-RVE Hard Asset Producers ETF (HAP) seeks to replicate as closely as possible the price and yield performance of the Rogers-Van Eck Hard Assets Producers Index (RVEI of the Index) by investing in a portfolio of securities that generally replicates the RVEI. RVEI, calculated and maintained by S-Network Global Indexes LLC, is a rules-based index intended to give investors a means of tracking the overall performance of a global universe of listed companies engaged in the production and distribution of hard assets and related products and services. RVEI comprises a global group of companies involved in six hard assets sectors: agriculture, energy, base metals, precious metals, forest products and water/renewable energy sources (solar and wind). The Fund’s investment advisor is Van Eck Associates Corporation


Disclosure (“none” means no position):None

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Taking Issue with David Dremen

I am troubled by Mr. Dremen in this one…Wall St. Newsletters

First watch today’s video from FOX.

Now, back in October 2007 Dremen wrote:

Since coming to Wall Street in the late 1960s, I have been through seven such crises. Somehow, the market survived them and thrived. Look back even further to the period following the end of World War II, and sure enough, you’ll find that pattern holding in four more market spills. Beginning with the first postwar panic, resulting from the 1948–49 Berlin blockade, stocks have tumbled only to come roaring back to new highs. The worst market break came in 1973–74, during a nasty recession and the Arab oil embargo. The most recent was the dot-com slide, which began in March 2000 and ended in late 2002. The Nasdaq Composite, heavy with tech names, still has not regained the ground lost in that crash, but the broad indexes have.

During each crisis investors felt confused, uncertain and panicky. They believed nothing in their previous experience could help them cope with the ominous new world they faced. “Sell, sell, sell,” their inner worrywarts advised. “Save your capital before it’s too late.”

This almost always turned out to be a bad move. Selling in a crisis is foolish. Yes, if you had sold the S&P 500, say, a year into the bear market, in March 2001, you would have avoided another 28% decline before it hit bottom. But would you have had the wisdom to get back into stocks a year and a half later? I don’t know of anyone advising an exit in March 2001 who also switched to a bullish stance in fall 2002. And if you had sold in March 2001, and stayed out, you would have missed an opportunity. Since then the stock market has returned 46% (including dividends). On average, for each of the dozen crises, the market was up 36% one year after the low point, 44% after two years.

Today’s stock market remains solid with good fundamentals and many cheap stocks at hand. The ongoing liquidity crisis must be handled gingerly, of course. Commit your capital slowly as several more shocks must be absorbed before a broad market rally begins. Here are several stocks to look at:

CIT Group (CIT) is one of the nation’s most diversified finance companies. Because of its small subprime business, CIT has dropped 34% from its June high. CIT presents good value at seven times trailing earnings, with a dividend yielding 1.4%.

One of my longtime favorite stocks is Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM, which I recommended last year and in my 2006 assessment column last winter and suggested that you keep it. If you don’t own Fannie now, buy it. The company has taken its lumps in recent years, yet it should benefit from the subprime mortgage debacle. Fannie, along with sister entity Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE ), has the industry’s best mortgage acquisition standards, and a bucketful of cash.

In February of this year he wrote:

Most of the 49 stocks I recommended in this column in 2008 were unable to escape the damage. If you had bought them all, you’d be down 26%, after subtracting a 1% transaction cost on new purchases. Similarly timed investments in the S&P 500 would have lost you 16%. (None of the figures here include dividends.) My mistake: being heavily weighted in financials, and being unable to predict which ones (like Citi and AIG) would get help from the federal government and which would be allowed to sink beneath the waves. I suffered big declines in Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM), Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE) and Washington Mutual (nyse: WM).

Thanks in part to Paulson’s desperate and unpredictable actions, common stocks of good banks and brokers went into death spirals. For the full year the S&P 500 financials index was down 55%, versus a 38.5% drop for the S&P 500 index.

Now we are in a recession which I think will be our worst since World War II. I expect the price of crude oil and other commodities to go LOWer and unemployment to hit 10% by year-end.

Obama’s economic team faces a Herculean task in turning the economy around. Central bankers around the globe are printing money in an attempt to prevent a deflationary recession. If the bankers are successful, deflation will be contained and the recession abated, but we’ll pay for this rescue with higher inflation for years to come.

Amidst this Dickensian darkness in our economy I also believe that it is the best of times if you happen to be a value investor like me. I am now seeing buying opportunities that I have rarely seen in my 32 years managing money

So, we know he was wrong in 2007.That is not an indictment, most folks were, including me (I was fortunate enough to miss the worst of it). My problem is with him still clinging to the same names for investors today as if the fundamentals of financial firms are not permanently changed AND if anyone has watched Congress the past month, are going to change even further. Also, blaming Paulson for the collapse of financial firms is erroneous. It smacks of blaming someone else for his investing mistakes. They collapsed not because of Paulson’s actions but because of the garbage they held (and many still do). It seems as though Dremen has not learned from his past mistakes.

I think it isn’t very responsible to reccomned investors buy banks now when:

1- The government is the majority shareholder in most

2- Increased regulation and restriction are coming down the road

3- We do not know how detrimental to earnings going forwsrd these news regulations will be

4- The government is dictating terms for compensation all but assuring the best talent will not be working there.

How can we recommend people buy shares in a company when we really have no idea what its business environment will look like in 6 or 12 months? If we do, aren’t we are gamblimg and telling people to do the same? Now, I am not saying Dremen is wrong in his outlook. Banks may very well recover and be fine. What I am saying is that nobody knows what rules the financial services industry will be playing under a year from now. How can we tell people to buy shares in the participants knowing that? I can’t.

For the record, I am long Wells Fargo (WFC) and holding it. I will not be buying more.



Disclosure (“none” means no position):None



Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Daniel Hannan Says It Like It Is

Am I the only one who longs for this type of rhetoric in Washington? Face to face rather than the snide snippets in hearings or to the TV camera we see?

Wall St. Newsletters

thanks to Alex at Contrarian Value Investing for the heads up on it.
Best line “you cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt”. Anyone listening?



Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books