India Fears Effects of Dubai Meltdown

Posted on by

After earlier assurances that the Dubai meltdown wouldn´t impact the Indian market much, top officials now admit in published reports that the Indian labor market could be affected.

“Annual remittances to India from UAE is about 2 billion US dollars, out of the $52 billion sent by Indian expats from across the world.Two-thirds of the six million people living in Dubai are Indians, more than 60 per cent of them Malayalis, much to the worry of Kerala’s Finance Minister T M Thomas Isaac.“One main fear,” he notes, “is that the credit to realty sector in Dubai would be frozen for some time. It could seriously affect the construction sector, thereby our workers.” There is also concern about the fate of Kochi’s Smart City project as the Dubai-based real estate giant TECOM is already alleged to be in a bad shape.Most of the Indians employed in the UAE, according to recruitment agencies, are in the real estate sector, financial services and retail.“The Middle East meltdown,” says E Balaji of Chennai-based headhunting firm Ma Foi Management Consultants, “will lead to at least 25 per cent contraction in the job market. It can have a ripple effect.”

My Comment:

I´m assuming that the job market refered to is the job market for Indians in the Middle East….

Meanwhile, the rupee has come under pressure as the Indian stock market sold off on the events in Dubai.

Rothschild Helps Dubai Put Assets On Auction Block

Posted on by

From The Daily Telegraph:

“Paul Reynolds, head of Rothschild’s advisory operations in the Middle East, was this week asked to work for the Dubai government’s chief restructuring officer alongside Aidan Birkett of Deloitte, who was appointed on Wednesday.

The team is tasked with assessing the group’s assets, which is likely to result in a large scale sell-off of assets as varied as the QE2 cruise liner; Turnberry, the golf course that hosted this year’s Open Championship; and a raft of properties.”

My Comment:

This was the first I´d read about Rothschild´s involvement in Dubai, but it turns out Rothschild has been advising Dubai about the potential bankruptcy of Dubai World and its subsidiary Nakheel for a while.  The advice is in connection with the bond issue to funnel money to Nakheel through something called the FSF (Financial Support Fund), which will apply certain tests (equivalent to the US “stress” tests) to pick and choose which of Dubai World´s operations will qualify.

“Those seeking FSF cash will have to demonstrate they have a long-term plan for financial and commercial viability, not least because the cash will have to be repaid, probably within a three- to five-year time frame. …..

It is worth noting, too, that the Dubai financial sector appears to fall outside the Rothschild guideline of FSF eligibility. Although they are obviously a key part of ongoing economic development, the emirate’s banks are generally regarded as being in a comparatively healthy condition, well-capitalised and with acceptable levels of non-performing loans. But whether the Rothschild strategy would allow a big financial institution with a high real-estate exposure to qualify for FSF funding is open to debate.”

More at Global Reearch.

What´s interesting is that Dubai World´s real estate assets wouldn´t qualify, which means that a lot of expensive real estate, some of it in New York and London, is likely to be on sale for cheap, although Dubai itself is stating that it will not allow itself to be forced to sell its prize assets at what it considers unfair prices.

Now with Dubai´s own property prices already down 50-60% from their 2008 peaks (with another 20% to go), what´s a firesale in London or New York property going to do to prices already showing signs of entering the famous second dip?

The Culture of “Da Boyz”

Posted on by

In a piece on Pamela Martens, the former Wall Street whistle blower,  who last year unearthed the black box of Markit, as well as the Primex dark pool, Stephen Metcalf discloses the culture of  “da boyz.”

Whistle-blower´s Grim Tale, Stephen Metcalf, The Observer, December 1, 2002

“The secret to Wall Street’s systemic chauvinism is simple: The Street is insulated against litigation and bad publicity. All employees at the major investment banks must sign a mandatory arbitration clause, effectively giving away their right to sue their employer. Claims are adjudicated in what amounts to an industry-controlled private justice system, by arbitration panels staffed overwhelmingly by white males in their 50’s and 60’s. In mandatory arbitration, no depositions are made public, and awards have ironclad gag provisions. So Wall Street can continue to smile, and smile, and be a villain. One anecdote in particular conveys the full horror of the situation. When two female Smith Barney employees complained of strikingly similar episodes involving a male co-worker, in which the man forced himself on them physically, the firm waited four years before conducting a hearing. “A week before the hearing,” Ms. Antilla writes, Smith Barney “forced the two women to undergo examinations by a psychiatrist of the brokerage firm’s choosing.” One of the women was subjected to a Gulag-quality interrogation. The grilling included “questions about her sex life, the opening of her gynecological records, and queries about her menstrual periods, her marital counseling, and her divorce. The psychiatrist even had copies of her therapy records.” The woman finally broke down when the psychiatrist asked her to recite in reverse order the names of the U.S. Presidents.”

Mark to “Markit” Manipulation

Posted on by

From Deep Capture:

“Another line of inquiry has not been pursued, however, though it is of equal, and perhaps greater, significance. That line of inquiry concerns the way in which the prices of credit default swaps effect [sic] the perceived value of all forms of debt — corporate bonds, commercial mortgages, home mortgages, and collateralized debt obligations — and as a result, the ability of hedge funds manipulators to use credit default swaps to enhance their bear raids on public companies.

If short sellers can manipulate the price of credit default swaps, they can disrupt those companies whose debt is insured by the credit default swaps whose prices are manipulated.  The game plan runs as follows: find a company that relies on a layer of debt that is both permanent, and which rolls over frequently (most financial firms fit this description). Short sell that company’s stock. Then manipulate the price of the CDS upwards, preferably into a spike, as you spread the news of the skyrocketing CDS price (perhaps with the cooperation of compliant journalists at, say, CNBC).

Because the CDS is, in essence, an insurance policy on the debt of the company, the spiking CDS pricing will cause the company’s lenders to panic and cut off access to credit. As this happens, the company’s stock will nosedive, thereby cutting off access to equity capital. Thus suddenly deprived of credit and equity, the firm collapses, and the hedge fund collects on its short bets.

Moreover, credit default swap prices are the primary inputs for important indices (such as the CMBX and the ABX) measuring the movement of the overall market for commercial and home mortgages.  In the months leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, short sellers pointed to these indices in order to argue  that investment banks – most notably Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – had overvalued the mortgage debt and property on their books. Meanwhile, several hedge funds made billions in profits betting that those indexes would drop.

It should therefore be a matter of some concern that credit default swap “prices” and the indexes derived from them are determined almost entirely by a little company with zero transparency and, it appears probable, a high exposure to influence from market manipulators. The company is called Markit Group, and there is every reason to believe that its CDS-driven indices (the CMBX, the ABX, and several others) are inaccurate, while the credit default swap “prices” that they publish  and which rock the market are in fact  nowhere close to the prices at which credit default swaps actually trade.

Last year, the media reported that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo had sent subpoenas to Markit Group as part of an investigation into possible manipulation of credit default swap prices by short sellers. This investigation, like Mr. Cuomo’s other investigations into market manipulation, have yielded no prosecutions.

The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating Markit Group for anti-trust violations. This investigation (which is reportedly focused on how Markit Group packages and sells its information) seems to acknowledge that Market Group has near-monopolistic control of information about credit default swap prices. However, if the press reports are correct, the DOJ has not considered the possible appeal of this monopolistic control to market manipulation.

“

My Comment

This isn’t the first time that Markit has been fingered.  Pam Martens wrote a detailed piece last year at Counterpunch called “How Wall Street Blew Itself Up” that blew Markit´s cover.

Now I´ve always suspected the indices (including Libor) are manipulated.  The fundamental problem in our markets is corruption..and that´s directly related to size and monopoly. That´s why you do need certain kinds of  “level playing field” or procedural types of regulation (not substantive regulation) to take care of the problem. I think this should also take care of Olagues’ caveat. The Deep Capture team isn’t confining its investigation to simply naked shortselling in the technical sense, but is expanding its work to the entire range of strategies involved in rigging the markets – insider trading, short-selling of all kinds, and the manipulation of indices. (Correction: I am referring to uncovered short sales, where there is no intent to deliver)

Deadbeat Expats Flee Sharia Crackdown on Debtors

Posted on by

Foreign workers lured by the promise of easy living and credit are turning tail and choosing to leg it, rather than face Dubai´s tough Sharia law which mandates prison for debtors [not a bad idea in some cases…]:

“Now, faced with crippling debts as a result of their high living and Dubai’s fading fortunes, many expatriates are abandoning their cars at the airport and fleeing home rather than risk jail for defaulting on loans.

Police have found more than 3,000 cars outside Dubai’s international airport in recent months. Most of the cars – four-wheel drives, saloons and “a few” Mercedes – had keys left in the ignition.

Some had used-to-the-limit credit cards in the glove box. Others had notes of apology attached to the windscreen.”

Dubai Debt Taken Out in Islamic Bonds

Posted on by

The Guardian, UK:

“To complicate matters further, the debts were taken out as Islamic bonds, known as sukuks, and the rules about what happens if the borrower fails to pay them back are hazy.”

My Comment

Add to this the earlier announcement that Abu Dhabi would treat the debts selectively, and you begin to wonder. If the selectivity is based on the degree of interconnection with the government, that would be one thing. But if the selectivity is based on discriminating between domestic and foreign creditors, Islamic and non Islamic, I suspect this would cause problems.

Now a bit of information on the sukuk.

Islamic banking has five pillars, as noted in this Times piece :

1. a ban on interest

2. a ban on speculation

3. a ban on haram (forbidden) investments, such as pork or gambling

4. the requirement of partnership or sharing of profit and loss

5. the requirement of asset backing.

What´s interesting is that while several Islamic funds have defaulted, the sukuk itself has never been tested in court, giving rise to uncertainty about how creditors would be treated in an insolvency….how they would be ranked in preference…and  whether they would be competing against each other rather than for the underlying assets…..

Psychic Income Versus Real Income (Updated)

Posted on by

John Mauldin in Frontline Thoughts on one off balance sheet vehicle that might get us out of this crisis faster than we think: psychic income, our dreams for our future…

“Every night we go to sleep on our psychic income, and every day we get up and try to figure out how to turn it into real income……The future is never easy for all but a few of us, at least not for long. But we figure it out. And that is why in 20 years we will be better off than we are today. Each of us, all over the world, by working out our own visions of psychic income, will make the real world a better place.”

My Comment:

In response to RobertinDC, my loyal reader, who politely calls this a “crock,” I should add the context of Mauldin´s note, which is technological change.

Mauldin argues that even if the market stays flat or depressed in real terms, even if unemployment increases and the standard of living falls, none of us can know for sure what the future holds. In ten years time, the world may very well be a better place.. in terms of possibilities… than it is today because of technological innovation.

Is this implausibly “feel good” stuff?

Well, yes.

Of course.

It takes no great courage or imagination to imagine plausible scenarios.

Imagination is the ability…the very creative and fundamentally life-giving ability..to imagine implausible..even unbelievable scenarios and then make them not only plausible but inevitable.

And, again in a fundamental sense, that is how creativity in all fields works. Focusing solely on the negative is itself a form of delusion.

I don´t mean by this that you can wish yourself into any outcome you want. There are also physical laws at work that you have to accept. You cannot wish away a contraction of the economy because of overspending, for instance.  The economy has to correct.

But the effects of the contraction, the extent, and its resolution can in fact be ameliorated by a change in attitude.

And by staying alert to every possibilty, we can also sense when deterministic interpretations – such as, “this is the way capitalism is”  — are being used to cover up what is in truth a very manipulated reality.

In that case, what we should focus on is an imagined ideal, the way capitalism should be, which may be implausible or even a crock, in some views, but is our only true guide to a way out of this debacle.

This is why I wrote, in 2007, that the economy didn´t have to crash. It was in a PR piece for the book.This wasn´t because I lacked a healthy sense of reality. But reality in the sense that physicists understand it is a very different thing from the “common sense” understanding of reality. The physicists´view is actually closer to what might be called implausible or even unbelievable. But it´s none theless true. The same divergence between common sense perception and underying reality exists in the economy.  Cynicism is often right. But not always. Pessimism is often warranted. But not always.

There were fundamental problems in the economy in 2006-2007, but the way the crash occured struck me then as very strange.

I suspected at the time that some of the indices were manipulated…and now the deepcapture team (and others like Pam Martens) have shown how they could have been (see prior posts).

In time, you are going to find that this is true of many of the indicators we use to read the mood of the investing public. Markets are driven by emotions. And smart crooks with the ability to manipulate that emotion can make big money from the manipulation….

And if they can, it stands to reason they will.

What is surprising is only why it took so long for supposedly tough minded financial reporters to figure that out.

In any case, whether manipulation is proved or not, what ordinary people can do is to take for their model the good trader. Good traders are people who can “keep their heads when all around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you”..as Kipling said.

The hall mark of expert trading is to control the emotions and rein them in from succumbing to mass moods. What does that mean in practical terms?

It means when everyone is panicking, look for silver linings, and when everyone is complacent, learn to worry…

Abu Dhabi Agrees to Selective Bail Out

Posted on by

“We will look at Dubai’s commitments and approach them on a case-by-case basis,” the official told the Reuters news agency by telephone, adding: “It does not mean that Abu Dhabi will underwrite all of their debt.”  Al Jazeera, November 28, 2009

An unnamed Abu Dhabi official has said that the rich UAE [United Arab Republic] emirate will help its spendthrift neigbour Dubai on a case by case basis.

This gets pretty interesting for all the other countries out there with sovereign debt problems .. even though, as I blogged earlier, Dubai´s is not a sovereign debt problem. It´s a problem for Dubai World.

However, there seems to be a perception issue involved, which is causing credit default swaps for Irish banks to rise dramatically.

What´s going on?

This isn´t the first time the Dubai story has caused jitters in the market. Ten months ago, Dubai CDS´s rose to record levels on fears that neighboring and much richer Abu Dhabi wouldn¨t ride in to the rescue.
But that was Dubai CDS. Now it´s Irish CDS´s that are up.

Over at the Baseline Scenario, Simon Johnson has an explanation. He says the Irish tremors are caused by the perception that as Dubai goes, so go the other sovereign debt crises around the world:

1. If Dubai can effectively default or reschedule its debts without disrupting the global economy, then others can do the same.
2. If Abu Dhabi takes a tough line and doesn’t destabilize markets, others (e.g., the EU) will be tempted to do the same (i.e., for Ireland and Greece). “No more unconditional bailouts” is an appealing refrain in many capitals.
3. If the US supports some creditor losses for Dubai (e.g., because of its connections with Iran), this makes it easier to impose losses on creditors elsewhere (even perhaps where IMF programs are in place, such as Eastern Europe).

I´m not sure I follow this reasoning at all. Nor do I understand why Mr. Johnson seems to think this adds up to strengthening Ben Bernanke´s hand…..

Let´s see. Is Mr. Johnson saying that if picking and choosing whom to rescue is OK for an Arab sheikh, it should be good  enough for Ben Bernanke?

Frankly, that sounds less like an explanation and more like advance PR for the Fed to engage in arbitrary treatment – bailouts – of banks and other companies..

[Update:  And lo, it turns out that Ben Bernanke does need all the help he can get. He wants his power, dammit…see this oped at the Washington Post, hat tip to EconomicPolicyJournal]

A more convincing explanation of the Irish reaction than Johnson´s is Irish exposure via investment and employment to the Dubai economy.

“The Emirate was a Mecca for the Irish glitterati during the Celtic Tiger years, with many would-be investors taking a gamble. Ireland captain O’Driscoll bought an apartment in the e389million Tiara Residence in 2006 off the plans. However, the property may now be worth much less than the €500,000 he paid for it.

But thousands of Irish investors are facing the prospect of their Dubai prop-erties plunging in price. Price drops in Dubai have been severe. According to Knight Frank Global House Price Survey, prices dropped by 40%.

It’s all a long way from the glittering heights of the middle of the decade – and from the 1980s, before the ruling Al-Maktoum family decided to turn their dusty emirates into a leading city.

The Irish have shaped the landscape of Dubai like few other nationalities, with Irish builders, engineers and architects prominent in building up the city state.

But now, question marks hang over the fate of hundreds of Irish who escaped the slump at home for jobs with companies under Dubai’s control.”

More here.

Henry Hazlitt On Keynesian Economics

Posted on by

“The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?

Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.”

— Henry Hazlitt. Economic In One Lesson

John Olagues on Naked Short Selling

Posted on by

John Olagues, the options market-maker who first analyzed the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman as the result of a concerted attack, has a new piece at Investopedia criticizing the ¨naked short selling¨critics:

Naked short selling is often in the news today, and is criticized by journalists and other pundits who claim that naked short sellers allied with “rumor mongers” caused the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. They cite the large “failure to deliver” for a stock as evidence of naked short sales days after the stock had dropped. Although the naked short sales happened after the collapse event, they still hold onto the idea that those after-the-event naked short sales caused the collapses. (To learn more, see Case Study: The Collapse Of Lehman Brothers.)

In my opinion, those who believe that naked short sales caused the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are misdirecting the attention from the illegal inside traders and their allied manipulators.

The large volumes of “fail to deliver” stock and the naked short sales after the  collapses of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers leads me to believe there is an explanation for those large volumes. However, that strategy did not cause the collapse of those companies. (For more, check out our Short Selling Tutorial.)

The Bottom Line

Selling short can be done in a myriad of ways. And, although naked short selling is often given a bad reputation in the media because it is frequently abused, it is not as nefarious as its critics suggest.

My Comment:

I´ve gone back and forth about this with Olagues, as well as with the most prominent figure in the naked short-selling campaign, Patrick Byrne…and it occurs to me that a lot of the problem lies in language – as is the case in other areas of political debate too.

Distinguishing between naked shortselling and other forms of shortselling where the shares fail to deliver seems to the source of the problem. NSS should include within it all forms of shortselling that do not cost the seller.

When the seller does not pay the actual price for his transaction, his activity is no longer adding information to the market. There is no price discovery, because the cost of the shortselling has been arbitrarily shifted elsewhere and in fact miscues the market. So what market-makers do in the course of their legitimate activities and also when they´re trying to exploit their position for their own benefit would come under the NSS rubric..

Aside:
I would go on..but I have had computer problems for the past two weeks…the keys type whatever they want to …I cant use the apostrophe, the parentheses have vanished, and when I type a dash, out comes an equals sign….which is why I keep using dots..and there are no contractions.