Category: Financial Services

The CFA Institute Makes First Major Change to Program Since Inception

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: WOCintech Chat (Flickr)

CFA Exam is Evolving to Better Reflect Employee, Employer, and Candidate Needs

The CFA Institute is making the most significant changes to its program since first introduced back in 1963. All of the changes are designed to better serve employers, candidates, and charterholders. The designation is considered the gold standard in the investment profession, so modifying the program must have involved much thought and debate. Six additions will be rolled out for those beginning the journey toward a CFA this year. The end result will be expanded eligibility, hands-on learning, a more focused curriculum, additional practice available, the ability to specialize, and recognition at every passed level.

What is a Chartered Financial Analyst?

A Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) is a professional designation awarded to financial analysts who have passed a rigorous set of exams administered by the CFA Institute. The CFA program is a globally recognized, graduate-level curriculum that covers a range of investment topics, including financial analysis, portfolio management, and ethical and professional standards.

To become a CFA charterholder, candidates must pass three levels of exams, each of which are administered once a year. In addition to passing the exams, candidates must also meet work experience or school requirements.

Eligibility

The institute is selective in who can be a candidate. In the past, those with a degree and working in the business, needed to be sponsored by two people; first, a current CFA member, and the second the prospective candidate’s supervisor. For students, the requirement was that they be in their last year of study and be sponsored by a professor in lieu of a supervisor.

The policy that had been in place is that students with just one year remaining in their studies may seek CFA candidacy. The purpose of the new policy, according to Margeret Franklin CFA, President and CEO of the CFA Institute, is to “provide students with the opportunity to Level 1 of the CFA program as a clear signal to employers that they are serious about a career in the investment industry by getting an early start in the program.” This is the first of the revisions in the program and has been in place since November 2022.

Job Ready Skills

This new feature recognizes there is a difference between textbook understanding and work. The upcoming study and test material is designed for charterholders to be able to add value much earlier to their employer by imparting practical skills. A practical skills module will be added beginning with those scheduled for the February 2024 Level 1 exam. Level II candidates taking the test  in May 2024 will also be tested on this new material. Level III candidates will see this material in 2025.

The impetus for this addition, according to the CFA Institute’s website, is it, “allows us to meet the expressed needs of student candidates, providing them with the opportunity to prepare for internships and investment careers, while also addressing industry demand for well-trained, ethical professionals.”

Expanded Study Material

Candidates are told they can greatly increase their chances of success taking the exam if they correctly answer 1,000 practice question during study, and score at least 70% on a mock exam. The Institute has added as an extra (not part of the basic study package) three new elements for preparation.  

To increase the percentage of successful candidates, the CFA Institute now offers a Level I Practice Pack. It includes 1,000 more practice questions and six additional mock exams to go with the study materials that is standard with registration.

The add-on also provides six additional, exam-quality mock exams. The questions are prepared by the same team that create the exams each year.

More Focused

The CFA has branded itself with the promise that 300 hours of study per level is what is needed for success. They recognize that most candidates put in much more time, and the success rate for this tough series of exams is low. The Institute has streamlined study to make more efficient its Level I material beginning with those sitting for the Level I exam in 2024.

To be more efficient, the Institute presumes Level I candidates have already mastered many introductory financial concepts as part of their university studies or career role. To avoid duplication and to streamline Level I curriculum content, they have moved some of this content. It is available separately as reference material for registered candidates.

The content that has been moved to “Pre-Read” incudes topics like the time-value of money, basic statistics, microeconomics, and introduction to company accounts.

Choose Your Specialty

Starting in 2025, candidates will be able to choose one of three specialty paths to be tested at Level III. The reason for the addition is the CFA curriculum has always prepared candidates for investment and finance buy-side roles. This choice allows the CFA credential to grow and develop to meet the needs of a broader group of individuals and employers.

The CFA traditional path has been to prepare the candidate for a portfolio management role. This traditional path is still included. The Institute is also adding concentrations in private wealth management, and private markets. There will only be one credential, the Chartered Financial Analyst, but three areas of specialty.

Recognition at Every Level

While the goal of every candidate is to earn a full-fledged CFA designation, each level is a significant achievement. Now, CFA Institute awarded digital badges will recognize success at the first two levels.

The digital badges, to be used on social media when rolled out later in 2023 will be accompanied by marketing and awareness-building with employers, to improve the visibility and value placed on progress through the CFA program. The goal is for candidates to be distinguished in the market, have one-click social sharing, with instant verification to employers and colleagues to boost credibility and solidify a candidates’ accomplishment.

Overall the change, is to signal to the market that completing Levels I and II are substantial achievements, with tangible recognition of a candidate’s commitment to the industry through their learned skills and experience, professionalism and ethical practices.

Take Away

The world investment world is changing, and the CFA Institute is responding in order to better serve those that benefit from this prestigious designation. Candidates will now have more choices, more study material available, and the ability to take credit for their rigorous studies beginning after passing Level I.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://300hours.com/cfa-requirements/#:~:text=The%20CFA%20Institute%20is%20the,the%20other%20your%20current%20supervisor.

CFA® Program The Next Evolution (brightcove.net)

Will Banking Issues Infect Other Industries?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image credit: Dan Reed (Flickr)

Fragile Investor Confidence Could Create Greater Repercussions, Says Moody’s

Bankdemic?

Moody’s Investors Service is cautiously optimistic bank problems will not spill over into the broader economy. However, in a new report, this top-three rating agency said they believe the financial regulators have acted in a way to prevent ripple effects from stressed banks, but they admit there is a good deal of uncertainty in both investor confidence and the economy as a whole. Moody’s wrote that “there is a risk that policymakers will be unable to curtail the current turmoil without longer-lasting and potentially severe repercussions within and beyond the banking sector.”

The reason for the rating services concern is, “even before bank stress became evident, we had expected global credit conditions to continue to weaken in 2023 as a result of significantly higher interest rates and lower growth, including recessions in some countries.” Moody’s said that the longer financial conditions remain tight, the greater the chance that industries outside of banking will experience problems.

Moody’s outlined three channels by which bank problems could become contagious to other sectors.

Source: Moody’s Investor Service

Three Spillover Channels Risks Defined

The first and most possible channel would be the problems encountered by entities with direct and indirect exposure to troubled banks. These can come in different forms. Financial and nonfinancial entities in the private and public sectors could have direct exposure to banks via deposits, loans, other transactional facilities, or direct holdings of weakened banks’ stocks or bonds. Unrelated, they may rely on a troubled bank for services essential to their business.

As it relates to this first channel, the rating agency wrote, “Monitoring and evaluating the direct and indirect links at the entity level will be a key focus of our credit analysis over the coming weeks and months.” Moody’s mentioned Credit Suisse by name in their note, saying the consequences of the UBS takeover are still unfolding, “Given the size and systemic importance of Credit Suisse, there likely will be varied consequences of its takeover for a range of financial actors with direct exposure to the bank.” The rating agency also believes the rapid completion of the deal appears to have avoided widespread contagion across the banking sector.”

The second channel Moody’s indicates could be most potent. It is that broader problems within the banking sector would cause banks to have stricter lending practices. Moody’s says that if this occurred, it would impact customers that are “liquidity-constrained.” The domino impact would then be that investors and lenders may become more cautious, “with particular regard to entities that are exposed to risks similar to those of the troubled banks.”

From this scenario, there is a potential for shocks from interest rate risk, asset-liability mismatches, a large imbalance of assets or liabilities, poor governance, weak profits, and higher leverage.  

The third risk is seen as policy risk. For policymakers whose main focus is taming inflation, the bank problems pose additional challenges to steering the economy to a soft landing. Policy actions and expectations will continue to serve to shape market sentiment. Moody’s baseline case forecasts that it expects policy responses to be rapid if risks emerge. This could help keep entity-level issues from becoming systemic problems. Moody’s note recognizes that policy and implementation are challenging, and there are risks of policy missteps, limitations, or unintended consequences.

“One key policy challenge is how policymakers will address both inflation and financial stability risks,” Moody’s explained that inflation is still high and labor market strength continues. “the failure to rein in inflation now could lead to de-anchoring of inflation expectations and increased nominal bond yields, forcing even more tightening later to restore monetary policy credibility.”

Moody’s wrote that the actions taken by the central banks, and financial regulators show that they recognize the importance of agility and coordination to address arising problems while not acting in a way to add more stress and create a systemic crisis.

Take Away

The recent downfall of a few banks demonstrates how pulling liquidity out of an overly stimulated economy can cause withdrawal pains. Whether the new, tighter credit conditions will tip the economy into a deeper economic downturn as the spillover effect spreads to other sectors remains to be seen. If it occurs, Moody’s expects it would come from the interplay between preexisting credit risks, policy actions, and market sentiment. But, its role as a rating agency is to highlight possible risks. This is not a forecast, there forecast is that regulators and policymakers will have eventually succeeded to contain any ripple effects.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.moodys.com/research/Credit-Conditions-Global-Policymakers-have-responded-promptly-to-bank-stress–PBC_1362240?cid=B3FDB92CC8E17352

Michael Burry’s Chart Tweet is Worth Understanding

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
M. Burry – Cassandra B.C. (Twitter)

To Show Banks at Risk, Michael Burry’s Picture Equals 1000 Words

Michael Burry has a well-deserved reputation for foreseeing approaching crises and positioning his hedge funds to benefit client investors. While he’s most famous for his unique windfall leading to and after the mortgage crisis of 2008-2009, the current banking debacle has him tweeting thoughts most days. His most recent bank-related tweet is worth sharing and, for most investors, needs some explaining.  

Recently Burry posted a chart of some large banks and their insured deposit base relative to their Tier 1 capital.

@michaeljburry (Twitter)

Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (CET1)

To best understand this chart it helps to be aware that for U.S. banks, the definition of Tier 1 capital is set by regulators. It’s an apples to apples measure of a banks’ financial strength and easily used to compare bank peers.  Overall it is the bank’s core capital, and helps to understand how well the banks financial infrastructure can absorb losses. It includes equity and retained earnings, as well as certain other qualifying financial instruments.

 

Unrealized Bank Losses

The sub-prime banking crisis of 2008 is different than what banks are struggling with now. The problem then was created by lax lending practices, including liar loans, floating rate mortgages with teaser rates, significant house flipping using these introductory (teaser) first year rates, and repackaging and selling the debt – often to other banks.

The current issue facing banks today is the prolonged period of rates being held down by monetary policy. Low rates makes for easy money and economic growth, but there is eventually a cost. The cost is overstimulus and inflation, then what is needed to fight inflation, in other words, higher rates.

Higher rates hurt banks in a number of ways. The most calculable is the value of their asssets, including publicly traded fixed rate obligations (Treasuries, MBS, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, other bank marketable CDs) all decline in worth when rates rise. The other way banks get hurt is that loans extend out when rates rise by a significant amount. As a bank customer, this is easy to understand, if you took out a 30-year mortgage two years ago, your rate is between 2.75%-3.50%. If mortgage rates move, as they did to 7%, the prepayment speeds on the loans extend out farther. That is to say fewer borrowers are going to add more to their principal payment each month, and those that may have bought another residence by selling the first and paying the loan off, are staying put. The banks had assigned a historic expected prepayment speed to each loan that represents their region, and the low rate loans are now going to take much longer to repay.

FDIC Insurance

Michael Burry (on assets as described above) used his Bloomberg to chart large bank unrealized losses to the potential for depositors to remove their uninsured deposits. Currently the FDIC is only obligated to insure bank deposits up to $250,000. Customers with deposits in excess of this amount (depending on how registered) leave their excess money at a single bank at their own risk.

It would seem logical for large customers and small, in this environment to check their own risk and bring it to zero.

The Wisdom of the Chart

The further up and to the right banks are on the chart, the more at risk the bank can be considered. This is because uninsured deposits equal more than 60% of liabilities, so prudent customers would move someplace where they are better protected.

However, if depositors do move money out of the banks listed here, the bank would have to either find new deposits, or stand to lose 30% or more by selling assets that are underwater because of rising rates. The banks are currently not easily able to go out into the market and attract money. Partially because we are now in a climate where even basic T-Bill levels would be high for a bank to pay, but also because there is less money supply (M2) in the system.

@michaeljburry (Twitter)

Take Away

Michael Burry is a worth paying attention to. His communication is often through Twitter, and his tweets are often cryptic without context. His most recent set of tweets, including one commenting on the chart outlines what is happening with a number of banks that find themselves in the unenviable position of ignoring the Fed’s forward guidance on rates and very public inflation data.

Sign-up for free stories daily from Channelchek, along with research and a full calendar of investor events. Sign up here.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

Cassandra B.C. on Twitter

The FOMC’s March Meeting Considerations

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Federal Reserve (Flickr)

Will Systemic Risks to the Banking System Override Inflation Concerns When the Fed Meets?

Yes, the Federal Reserve’s central objective is to help maintain a sound banking system in the United States. The Fed’s regional presidents are currently in a blackout period (no public appearances) until after the FOMC meeting ends on March 22. So there is little for markets to go on to determine if the difficulties being experienced by banks will hinder the Fed’s resolve to bring inflation down to 2%. Or if the systemic risks to banks will override concerns surrounding inflation. Below we discuss some of the considerations the Fed may consider at the next meeting.

The Federal Reserve’s sound banking system responsibility is part of its broader responsibility to promote financial stability in the U.S. economy. The Fed does its best to balance competing challenges through monetary policy to promote price stability (low-inflation), maintaining the safety and soundness of individual banks, and supervising and regulating the overall banking industry to ensure that it operates in a prudent and sound manner.

While the headline news after the Fed adjusts monetary policy is usually about the Fed Funds target, the Fed can also adjust Reserve Requirements for banks. Along with that, the rate paid on these reserves, Interest on Excess Reserves (IOER). Another key bank rate that is mostly invisible to consumers is the Discount Rate. This is the interest rate at which banks can borrow money directly from the Federal Reserve. The discount rate is set by the Fed’s Board of Governors and is typically higher than the Federal Funds rate.

Banks try to avoid going to the Discount Window at the Fed because using this more expensive money is a sign to investors or depositors that something may be unhealthy at the institution. Figures for banks using this facility are reported each Thursday afternoon. There doesn’t seem to be bright flashing warning signs in the March 9 report. The amount lent on average for the seven-day period ending Thursday March 9, had decreased substantially, following a decrease the prior week. While use of the Discount Window facility is just one indicator of the overall banking systems health, it is not sending up red flags for the Fed or other stakeholders.

The European Central Bank Raised Rates

There is an expression, “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold.” The actions of the central bank in Europe, (the equivalent of the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) demonstrates that the bank failures in the U.S. are viewed as less than a sneeze. The ECB raised interest rates by half of a percentage point on Thursday (March 16). This is in line with its previously stated plan, even as the U.S. worries surrounding the banking system have shaken confidence in banks and the financial markets in recent days.

The ECB didn’t completely ignore the noise across the Atlantic; it said in a statement that its policymakers were “monitoring current market tensions closely” and the bank “stands ready to respond as necessary to preserve price stability and financial stability in the euro area.”

While Fed Chair Powell is restricted from making public addresses during the pre-FOMC blackout period, it is highly likely that there have been conversations with his cohorts in Frankfurt.

The Fed’s Upcoming Decision

On March 14, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported core inflation (without volatile food and energy) rose in February. Another indicator, the most recent PCE index released on February 24 also demonstrated that core prices are rising at a pace faster than the Fed deems healthy for consumers, banking, or the economy at large. The inflation numbers suggest it would be perilous for the Fed to pause its tightening efforts now.

What has so far been limited to a few U.S. banks is not likely to have been a complete surprise to those that have been setting monetary policy for the last 12 months. It may have surprised most market participants, but warning signs are usually picked up by the FRS, FDIC, and even OCC well in advance. And before news of a bank closure becomes public. Yet, the FOMC continued raising rates and implementing quantitative tightening. The big difference today is, the world is now aware of the problems and the markets are spooked.

The post-meeting FOMC statement will likely differ vastly from the past few meetings. While what the Fed decides to do remains far from certain, what is certain is that inflation is still a problem, and rising interest rates mathematically erode the value of bank assets. At the same time, money supply (M2) is declining at its fastest rate in history.  At its most basic definition, M2 is consumer’s cash position, including held at banks. As less cash is held at banks, some institutions may find themselves in the position SVB was in; they have to sell assets to meet withdrawals. The asset values, which were “purchased” at lower rates, now sell for far less than were paid for them.

This would seem to put the Fed in a box. However, if it uses the Discount Window tool, and makes borrowing easier by banks, it may be able to satisfy both demands. Tighter monetary policy, while providing liquidity to banks that are being squeezed.

Take Away

What the Fed will ultimately do remains far from certain. And a lot can happen in a week. Bank closings occur on Friday’s so the FDIC has the weekend to seize control. So if you’re concerned, don’t take Friday afternoons off.

If the Fed Declines to raise rates in March it could send a signal that the Fed is weakening its fight against inflation. This could cause rates to spike higher in anticipation of rising inflation. Everyone loses if that is the case, consumers, banks, and those holding U.S. dollars.

The weakness appears to be isolated in the regional-bank sector and was likely known to the Fed prior to the closing of the banks.

Consider this, only two things have changed for Powell since the last meeting, one is rising core CPI. The other is that he will have to do an even better job at building confidence post-FOMC meeting. Business people and investors want to know that the Fed can handle the hiccups along the path to stamping out high inflation.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20230309/

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Details of The New Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Issue Joint Statements on Silicon Valley Bank

In a joint statement released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, they announced actions they are now committed to taking to “protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in the banking system.” The actions are being taken to ensure that “the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.”

Specifically, the actions directly impact two banks, Silicon Valley Bank in California and Signature Bank in New York, but it was made clear that it could be extended to other institutions. The joint news release reads, “After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.

In a second release by the three agencies, details were uncovered as to how this was designed to not impact depositors, with losses being borne by stockholders and debtholders. The release reads as follows:

“The additional funding will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.

With approval of the Treasury Secretary, the Department of the Treasury will make available up to $25 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund as a backstop for the BTFP. The Federal Reserve does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds.

After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary Yellen, after consultation with the President, approved actions to enable the FDIC to complete its resolutions of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in a manner that fully protects all depositors, both insured and uninsured. These actions will reduce stress across the financial system, support financial stability and minimize any impact on businesses, households, taxpayers, and the broader economy.

The Board is carefully monitoring developments in financial markets. The capital and liquidity positions of the U.S. banking system are strong and the U.S. financial system is resilient.”

Take Away

Confidence by depositors, investors, and all economic participants is important for those entrusted to keep the U.S. economy steady. The measures appear to strive for the markets to open on Monday with more calm than might otherwise have occurred.

While the sense of resolve of the steps explained in the two statements, both released at 6:15 ET Sunday evening is reminiscent of 2008, there is still no expectation that the problem is wider than a few institutions.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312a.htm

Budget Discussions Likely to Roil Markets

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shalanda Young besides President Biden (Credit: The White House, March 2022)

Investor Buy/Sell Patterns Could Change Under Biden Budget Proposals

The White House’s annual budget request to Congress has the power to move market sectors, as it’s a preliminary look at spending priorities and possible revenue sources. This year, alongside the pressure of Congress wrestling with raising the debt limit, the House Ways and Means Committee hearings related to the President’s budget could have a more significant impact than before. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will address the House committee on Friday, March 10th, and respond to questions. Taxation and spending priorities of the White House will be further revealed during this exchange.

Watch Live coverage at 9 AM ET.    

What is Expected

The President’s proposed budget for the 2024 fiscal year proposes cutting the U.S. deficit “by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade,” according to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, this is a much larger number than the $2 trillion mentioned as a goal during the State of the Union address last month. Jean-Pierre explained to reporters that the proposed spending reduction is “something that shows the American people that we take this very seriously,” and it answers, “how do we move forward, not just for Americans today but for … other generations that are going to be coming behind us.”

Source: Twitter

Biden’s requested budget includes a proposal that could impact healthcare as it would grow Medicare financing by raising the Medicare tax rate on earned and investment income to 5% from the current 3.8% for people making more than $400,000 a year.

Railroad safety measures are also included in Biden’s proposal, it asks for millions of additional funding for railroad safety measures spurred by recent derailments. The President also proposes a 5.2% pay raise for federal employees.

The budget deficit would be expected to shrink over ten years in part by raising taxes. One proposal investors should look out for is what has been called the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax. According to a White House brief, it “will ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay a tax rate of at least 20 percent on their full income, including unrealized appreciation. This minimum tax would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters.” The tax will apply only to the top 0.01% of American households (those worth over $100 million).

At present, the tax system discourages taking taxable gains on investments to postpone taxes. If adopted by Congress, a 20% tax on the unrealized appreciation of investments could have the effect of altering buying and selling patterns of securities, as well as real estate and other investments.

Jean-Pierre did say that the budget would propose “tax reforms to ensure the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share while cutting wasteful spending on special interests like big oil and big pharma.” One reform, the White House has been outspoken about is corporate buybacks. He proposes, quadrupling the tax on corporate stock buybacks.

Take Away

The market will get insight beginning the second week of March 2023 into the financial priorities of the White House and thoughts on members of the House Ways and Means Committee. While nothing is set in stone, the White House and Congress would both seem to be on the same side of more fiscal restraint.

And although nothing is close to complete, the discussions and news of debate can have a dramatic impact on markets. For example, investors may be treated to more buybacks if it appears the tax on buybacks will increase in 2024. Another example would be a tax on the appreciated investments of wealthy individuals. It could follow that accounts of these individuals would have an increased incentive to transact than under a system where capital gains are only recognized by the IRS after taken.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/03/08/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-19/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/115464?s=1&r=6

https://fortune.com/2023/02/10/how-much-would-musk-gates-bezos-pay-bidens-billionaire-tax/

Powell’s Testimony to Congress Revealed A Lot

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: C-Span (YouTube)

Is the Fed Doing Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

The Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has an ongoing credibility problem. The problem is that markets, economists, and now Congress find him extremely credible. So credible that they have already declared him a winner fighting inflation, or of more pertinence, the economy a loser because Powell and the Fed policymakers have been so resolute in their fight against the rising cost of goods and services that soon there will be an abundance of newly unemployed, businesses will falter, and the stock market will be left in tatters. This view that he has already done too much and that the economy has been overkilled, even while it shows remarkable strength, was echoed many times during his visit to Capital Hill for his twice a year testimony.

“As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell (March 8, 2023).

Powell’s Address

Perhaps the most influential individual on financial markets in the U.S. and around the world, Fed Chair Powell continued his hawkish (inflation fighter, interest rate hiker) tone at his Senate and House testimonies. The overall message was; inflation is bad, inflation has been persistent, we will continue on the path to bring it down, also employment is incredibly strong, the employment situation is such that we can do more, we will do more to protect the U.S. economy from the ravages of inflation.

Powell began, “My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation is causing significant hardship, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal.” Powell discussed the forceful actions taken to date and added, “we have more work to do. Our policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of labor market conditions that benefit all.”

Powell discussed the slowed growth last year; there were two periods of negative GDP growth reported during the first two quarters. He mentioned how the once red-hot housing sector is weakening under higher interest rates and that “Higher interest rates and slower output growth also appear to be weighing on business fixed investment.” He then discussed the impact on labor markets, “Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight. The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent in January, its lowest level since 1969. Job gains remained very strong in January, while the supply of labor has continued to lag.1 As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.”

On the subject of monetary policy, the head of the Federal Reserve mentioned that the target of 2% inflation has not been met and that recent numbers have it moving in the wrong direction. Powell also discussed that the Fed had raised short-term interest rates by adding 4.50%. He suggested that recent economic numbers require that an increase to where the sufficient height of fed funds peaks is likely higher than previously thought. All the while, he added, “we are continuing the process of significantly reducing the size of our balance sheet.”

Powell acknowledged some headway, “We are seeing the effects of our policy actions on demand in the most interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. It will take time, however, for the full effects of monetary restraint to be realized, especially on inflation. In light of the cumulative tightening of monetary policy and the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, the Committee slowed the pace of interest rate increases over its past two meetings.” Powell added, “We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting, taking into account the totality of incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation.”

Questions and Answers

Congressmen both in the Senate and the House use the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress (formerly known as Humphrey Hawkins Testimony) to ask questions of the person with the most economic insight in Washington. Often their questions have already been covered in the Chair’s opening address, but Congresspeople will ask anyway to show their constituents at home that they are looking after them.

Elizabeth Warren is on the Senate Banking Committee; her math concluded the result of even a 1% increase in unemployment is a two million-worker job loss. Warren asked Powell, “Do you call laying off two million people this year not a sharp increase in unemployment?” “Explain that to the two million families who are going to be out of work.” In his response, Powell went back to historical numbers and reminded the Senator that an increase in unemployment would still rank the current economy above what Americans have lived through in most of our lifetimes, “We’re not, again, we’re not targeting any of that. But I would say even 4.5 percent unemployment is well better than most of the time for the last, you know, 75 years,” Chair Powell answered.

U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday heard Congressman Frank Lucas concerned about the pressure for the Fed to include climate concerns as an additional Fed mandate. Lucas from Oklahoma asked,  “How careful are you in ensuring that the Fed does not place itself into the climate debate, and how can Congress ensure that the Fed’s regulatory tool kit is not warped into creating policy outcomes?” Powell answered that the Fed has a narrow but real role involving bank supervision. It’s important that individual banks understand and can manage over time their risks from any climate change and it’s impact on business and the economy. He wants to make sure the Fed never assumes a role where they are becoming a climate policymaker.

Other non-policy questions included Central Bank Digital Currencies. House Congressman Steven Lynch showed concerns that the Fed was experimenting with digital currencies. His question concerned receiving a public update on where they are with their partnership with MIT, their testing, and what they are trying to accomplish. Powell’s response seemed to satisfy the Congressman. “we engage with the public on an ongoing basis, we are also doing research on policy, and also technology,” said Powell. Follow-up questions on the architecture of a CBDC, were met with responses that indicated that the Fed, they are not at the stage of making decisions, instead, they are experimenting and learning. “How would this work, does it work, what is the best technology, what’s the most efficient.” Powell emphasized that the U.S. Federal Reserve is at an early stage, but making technological progress. They have not decided from a policy perspective if this is something that the country needs or desires.

Issues at Stake

As it relates to the stock and bond markets, the Fed has been holding overnight interest rates at a level that is more than one percentage point below the rate of inflation. The reality of this situation is that investors and savers that are earning near the Fed Funds rate on their deposits are losing buying power to the erosive effects of inflation. Those that are investing farther out on the yield curve are earning even less than overnight money. The impact here could be worse if inflation remains at current levels or higher, or better if the locked-in yields out longer on the curve are met with inflation coming down early on.

The Fed Chair indicated at the two testimony before both Houses of Congress that inflation has been surprisingly sticky. He also indicated that they might increase their expected stopping point on tightening credit. Interest rates out in the periods are actually lower than they had been in recent days and as much as 0.25% lower than they were last Fall. The lower market rates and inverted yield curve suggest the market thinks the Fed has already won and has likely gone too far. This thought process has made it difficult for the Fed Chair and others at the Fed that discuss a further need to throw cold water on an overheated economy. Fed Tightening has not led to an equal amount of upward movement out on the yield curve. This trust or expectation that the Fed has inflation under control would seem to be undermining the Fed’s efforts. With this, the Fed is likely to have to move even further to get the reaction it desires. The risk of an unwanted negative impact on the economy is heightened by the trust the bond market gives to Powell that he has this under control and may have already won.

Powell’s words are that the Fed has lost ground and has much more work to do.

Take Away

At his semiannual testimony to Congress, an important message was sent to the markets. The Fed has the right tools to do the job of bringing inflation down to the 2% range, but those tools operate on the demand side. In the U.S. we are fortunate to have two jobs open for every person seeking employment. While this is inflationary, it provides policy with more options.

As of the reporting of January economic numbers, a trend may be beginning indicating the Fed is losing its fight against inflation. It is likely that it will have to do more, but the Fed stands willing to do what it takes. Powell ended his prepared address by saying, “Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We at the Federal Reserve will do everything we can to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Director, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony.htm

Three Regulators Provide Direction to Banks on Crypto

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: QuoteInspector.com (Flickr)

The Statement on Crypto Vulnerabilities by Regulators

A joint statement to banking organizations on “crypto-asset vulnerabilities” was just released by three bank regulatory agencies. Most banks in the U.S. fall under these three federal institutions overseeing them in a regulatory capacity. So when a statement regarding the health and stability of banks is made, it is often a joint statement from the three. At a minimum, statements include the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

About the Statement

Issued on February 23rd, the multiple agencies felt a need to highlight liquidity risks presented by some “sources of funding” from crypto-asset-related entities, and practices they should be using to manage the risks.

The regulators remind banks that they are neither prohibited nor discouraged from offering banking services to this class of customer, but if they do, much of the existing risk management principles should be applied.

Related Liquidity Risks

Highlighted in the statement by the three bank regulatory bodies are key liquidity risks associated with crypto asset participants and crypto-asset organizations involved in banking and what they should be aware of.

This includes some sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities that may pose heightened liquidity risks to those involved in banking due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows, including, for example:

  • Deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity that is for the benefit of thecrypto-asset-related entity’s customers. The stability of the deposits, according to the statement, may be driven by the behavior of the end customer or asset sector dynamics, and not solely by the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the banking organization’s direct counterparty. The concern is the stability of the deposits may be influenced by, for example, periods of stress, market volatility, and related vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, which may or may not be specific to the crypto-asset-related entity. Such deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid inflows as well as outflows when end customers react to crypto-asset-sector-related market events, media reports, and uncertainty. This uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-assetrelated entity.
  • Deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves. The stability of this type of  deposit may be linked to demand for stablecoins according to the agencies, along with the confidence of stablecoin holders in the coin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices. These deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.

More broadly, when a banking organization’s deposit funding base is concentrated in crypto-asset-related entities that are highly interconnected or share similar risk profiles, deposit fluctuations may also be correlated, and liquidity risk therefore may be further heightened, according to the statement.

Effective Risk Management Practices

In light of these hightened risks, agencies think it is critical for banks that use certain sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities, as described earlier, to actively monitor the liquidity risks inherent in these sources of funding and to establish and maintain effective risk management and controls commensurate with the level of liquidity risks from these funding sources. Effective practices for these banking organizations could include:

  • Understanding the direct and indirect drivers of the potential behavior of deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the extent to which those deposits are susceptible to unpredictible vulnerability.
  • Assessing potential concentration or interconnectedness across deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the associated liquidity risks.
  • Incorporating the liquidity risks or funding volatility associated with crypto-asset-related deposits into contingency funding planning, including liquidity stress testing and, as appropriate, other asset-liability governance and risk management processes.
  • Performing significant due diligence and monitoring of crypto-related-entities that establish deposit accounts, including assessing the representations made by those crypto-asset-related entities to their end customers about the accounts – if innaccurate they could lead to to unexpected or rapid outflows.

Additionally, banks and banking organizations are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  For FDIC insured institutions, this includes compliance with rules related to brokered deposits and Call Report filing requirements.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20230223a1.pdf

Why NFL Players and Other Pros Need an Elite Money Management Team

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Randychiu (Flickr)

Managing Money Is as Important as Making It: The Sad Case of Athletes Going Broke

Lacking a solid team is a recipe for organizational failure, and those intending to excel in business—or any other sector—must invest in management. Considering that many professional athletes encounter bankruptcy shortly after retiring, they are a demographic that could greatly benefit from quality financial management teams. Elite athletes earn millions of dollars during a short time, but few succeed at multiplying their earnings to create wealth. An investigation by the Global Financial Literacy Center found that 16 percent of National Football League (NFL) players declare bankruptcy within twelve years of retirement. Quite startling is that some athletes report bankruptcy as early as two years after retirement.

The results of the study also showed that NFL stars were just as likely to experience bankruptcy as other NFL players. Bankruptcy figures are equally daunting for basketball players. Research reveals that National Basketball Association (NBA) players who file for bankruptcy do so within 7.3 years after retirement, and 6.1 percent of all NBA players go bankrupt within fifteen years of exiting their profession. The emotional trauma of bankruptcy can lead to distress. Research indicates that 78 percent of NFL players experience financial distress two years after retirement.

Inept management of finances is the easiest strategy for losing wealth. Professional athletes can avert financial calamities by investing in a better management team. There is a stark difference between managing a junior athlete and managing a superstar who earns millions of dollars yearly. A professional who manages a junior athlete could be an excellent manager for a player at that stage, but the transition to elite status requires people with greater expertise.

In business, a manager should possess the relevant skills. They don’t have to be your friend. Elite athletes need elite managers to help them navigate stratospheric wealth. If a manager doesn’t have expertise in managing successful athletes or businesses, then he is unfit to manage an elite athlete. Athletes who succeed at expanding their empires are reluctant to rely on the services of amateurs.

Magic Johnson credits his success to investing in capable people rather than to the “wisdom” of family members and old friends. Pablo S. Torre paints Johnson as a serious businessman in a piece highlighting the failures of professional athletes:

Johnson started out by admitting he knew nothing about business and sought counsel from . . . men such as Hollywood agent Michael Ovitzand and Peter Guber. Now, Johnson says, he gets calls from star players “every day” . . . and cuts them short if they propose relying on family and friends.

Johnson’s strategy is even more relevant in light of the recent financial scandal involving the disappearance of over twelve million dollars held by sprinting legend Usain Bolt in Jamaican investment firm Stock and Securities Limited (SSL). Venting to reporters, Bolt’s attorney Linton Gordon argues that the Financial Services Commission (FSC) should be held liable for the mishap because the agency lapsed in providing proper oversight:

They should bear responsibility to some extent, if not entirely, because all along they kept quiet and did not alert the public, including Mr. Bolt, to the fact that the company was not operating in a way compliant with the law. It’s 10 years now they say they have been red flagging this company. Had he known that he would have withdrawn his money and he would not have lodged anymore.

Blaming the regulator is easy, but the debacle reveals deficits in Bolt’s management team. Usain Bolt did not need to know that SSL was deemed unsound years ago because his management team should have furnished him with that information. Some years ago, I was at an event where fellow investors argued that SSL was irredeemable. Bolt’s managers were out of the loop. Moreover, Jamaica is known for institutional weakness and fraud, so it’s a bit weird that a man of Bolt’s stature would have so much money stored in a Jamaican institution to begin with.

Some say that the FSC must be accountable for the misappropriation of Bolt’s money, but the FSC penned a report that Bolt’s managers would have seen if they were doing research. Moreover, in a country where agencies are frequently compromised by politics, there is a possibility that the FSC did not suspend the operations of SSL because it was constrained by rogue actors. Bolt’s managers should have shown some insight by recommending that the superstar limit his Jamaican investments and by soliciting the services of leading wealth management firms like UBS Wealth Management or Baird.

The case study of Usain Bolt demonstrates that even athletes with good managers should never hesitate to upgrade when their employees are not equipped for bigger challenges. Money is hard to make, but with a bad manager, it’s easy to lose. Therefore, athletes interested in keeping their money must invest in the right team or face the consequences.

About the Author:

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com

Do Some Money Measurements Double Count?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: John (Flickr)

Can Correlations Help Define Money?

According to popular thinking, the government’s definition of money is of a flexible nature. Sometimes it could be M1, and at other times it could be M2 or some other M money supply. M1 includes currency and demand deposits. M2 includes all of M1, plus savings deposits, time deposits, and money market funds. By popular thinking what determines whether M1, M2, or some other M is considered money is whether it has high correlation with key economic data such as the gross domestic product (GDP).

However, since the early 1980s, correlations between various definitions of money and the GDP have broken down. The reason for this breakdown, many economists believe, is that financial deregulation has made the demand for money unstable. Consequently, the usefulness of money as a predictor of economic activity has significantly diminished.

Some economists believe that the relationship between money supply and the GDP could be strengthened by assigning weights to money supply components. The Divisia indicator, named after the French economist François Divisia, adjusts for differences in the degree to which various components of the monetary aggregate serve as money. This, in turn, supposedly offers a more accurate picture of what is happening to money supply.

The primary Divisia monetary indicator for the US is M4. It is a broad aggregate that includes negotiable money market securities, such as commercial paper, negotiable CDs, and T-bills. By assigning suitable weights, which are estimated by means of quantitative methods, it is held that one is likely to improve the correlation between the weighted monetary gauge and economic indicators.

Consequently, one could employ this monetary measure to ascertain the future course of key economic indicators. However, does it make sense?

Defining Money

No definition of money can be established by means of a correlation. A definition is supposed to present the essence of the subject being identified.

To establish the definition of money, we must determine how a money-using economy came about. Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit would have difficulty finding a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.

The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved from the most marketable commodity. According to Murray Rothbard:

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.

With money, the butcher can exchange his meat for money and then exchange money for fruits. Likewise, the fruit farmer could exchange his fruit for money. With the obtained money, the fruit farmer can now exchange it for shoes. The reason why all these transactions become possible is because money is the most marketable commodity (i.e., the most accepted commodity).

According to Rothbard:

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

It follows then that all other goods and services are traded for money. This fundamental characteristic of money is contrasted with other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings. Capital goods permit the expansion of the infrastructure that, in turn, permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services. Contrary to the mainstream thinking, the essence of money has nothing to do with financial deregulation as this essence will remain intact in the most deregulated of markets.

Some commentators maintain that money’s main function is to fulfill the role of a means of savings. Others argue that its main role is to be a unit of account and a store of value. While all these roles are important, they are not fundamental. The basic role of money is to be a medium of exchange, with other functions such as unit of account, a store of value, and a means of savings arising from that role.

Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, individuals have settled on gold as money. In today’s monetary system, the money supply is no longer gold, but metal coins and paper notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions.

Distinction between Claim and Credit Transactions

At any point in time, an individual can keep money in a wallet or somewhere at home or deposit the money with a bank. In depositing money, an individual never relinquishes ownership over the money having an absolute claim over it.

This contrasts with a credit transaction, in which the lender of money relinquishes a claim over one’s money for the duration of the loan. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Credit transactions do not alter the amount of money. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.

Why Are Various Popular Definitions of Money Misleading?

Consider the money M2 definition, which includes money market securities, mutual funds, and other time deposits. However, investing in a mutual fund is, in fact, an investment in various money market instruments. The quantity of money is not altered because of this investment; only the ownership of money has temporarily changed. Hence, including mutual funds as part of money results in double counting.

The Divisia monetary gauge is of little help in establishing what money is. Because this indicator was designed to strengthen the correlation between monetary aggregates such as M4 and other Ms with an economic activity indicator, the Divisia gauge can better be seen as an exercise in curve fitting.

The Divisia of various Ms, such as the Divisia M4, does not address the double counting of money. The M4 is a broad aggregate and includes a mixture of claim and credit transactions (i.e., a double counting of money). This generates a misleading picture of what money is.

Applying various weights to the components of money cannot make the definition of money valid if it is created from erroneous components. Furthermore, even if the components were valid, one does not improve the money definition by assigning weights to components.

The introduction of electronic money has supposedly introduced another confusion regarding the definition of money. It is believed that electronic money is likely to make the cash redundant. We hold that electronic money is not new money, but rather a new way of employing existing monetary transactions. Regardless of these new ways of employing money, definitions and the role of money do not change.

Conclusion

The attempt to strengthen the correlation between various monetary aggregates and economic activity by using variable weighting of money supply components defeats the definition of money. The essence of money cannot be established by means of a statistical correlation, but rather by understanding what money is about.

About the Author

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University.  

Are Naked Shorts Depressing Your Investment Portfolio?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Replicated from Twitter (1/23/2023)

Small-Cap Companies are Punching Back on Naked Shorts in Growing Numbers

The hashtag #NakedShorts has been trending on Twitter for over a week. To save Channelchek readers any embarrassment that may occur from Googling this term, especially at work, below are specifics on this market jargon. Also included below are specifics on why this has been trending and how it may impact self-directed retail traders and even small publicly traded companies that have the potential to be impacted by an illegal practice that apparently is not uncommon.

What are Naked Shorts?

Naked short selling of stocks is the illegal practice of short-selling shares that have not been allocated and verified to exist. Most shorting of stock occurs only after the trader borrows the security or determines that it can be borrowed before they sell it short (without owning). So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may actually be larger than the tradable shares in the market. This can place downward pressure on shares as they are sold, at times in excess of their existence.

Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues in practice because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between physical and electronic trading systems.

Small Caps Revenge

Empowered by the activities of Gamestop (GME) and others, a growing number of small-cap companies are devising plans to go after naked short sellers.  This could help their companies trade at a fairer value rather than be artificially depressed by illegal trading practices.

Companies involved in heightening integrity in the markets for their stock are companies like Verb Technology Co. Inc. (VERB), a provider of interactive video-based sales apps with operations in Newport, California, and Lehi, Utah. Verb said this week it was joining education company Genius Group Ltd. (GNS), e-scooter and e-bike maker Helbiz (HLBZ), and Creatd Inc. (CRTD) designed for creators in coming up with measures to ensure “greater integrity in the capital markets” as Verb Chief Executive Rory J. Cutai said in a statement.

The move gained impetus last week as Genius Group said it had appointed a former F.B.I. director to lead a task force investigating alleged illegal trading in its stock, first disclosed a few weeks ago. Genius CEO believes there has been a measurable cost to the company. “We want this to stop,” he said. “They’re taking value away from our shareholders. They’re predators. They’re doing something illegal, and we want it to stop, whether that means getting regulators to enforce existing regulations or put new ones in place,” he said.

Legality of Naked Short Selling

In regular (legal) short trading, an investor borrows shares from someone else and pays an interest rate or “rebate rate.” They then sell them in anticipation of the stock price falling. The trade is a winner if the price falls and the seller buys them back at a lower price (netting out rebate rate) to close out the open short sale.

In naked short selling, investors don’t borrow the stock. They skip right to selling unowned with a promise to deliver them at a later date. If that promise is not fulfilled, it’s a failure to deliver.

Recently, companies such as AMC have paid a special dividend to determine, and frankly hurt, those short sellers that have not abided by the rules by first borrowing the security it sold.

Image: Elon Musk has been very vocal, Tesla is a company that hedge fund managers have routinely shorted (Twitter)

What Some Companies are Doing

Last week Helbiz said it was going to punch back at naked short positions. Creatd CEO Jeremy Frommer, meanwhile, is behind Ceobloc, a website that aims to end the practice of naked short selling. “Illegal naked short selling is the biggest risk to the health of today’s public markets” is how the site introduces its mission.

Genius just set guidance for 2023, saying it expects revenue of $48 million to $52 million, up 37% from its 2022 pro forma guidance. Last Thursday, the stock rose a record 290% in volume of about 270 million shares traded. That crushed the daily average of about 634,000. The CEO says this is another indicator of wrongdoing, given that the company’s float is just 10.9 million shares. “Clearly, that’s far more shares than we created,” the founder, Roger Hamilton points out.

Take Away

It is unclear what the task force of the small-cap companies intends to do. Companies like AMC Theaters (AMC) waged war by declaring a dividend that was a different class of stock. Shareholders would have to verify their ownership of a registered share in order to receive the dividend. This went a long way to verify what is in the float that is legitimate and that which is not.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/small-cap-companies-are-going-after-naked-short-sellers-in-growing-numbers-its-the-biggest-risk-to-the-health-of-todays-public-markets-11674480805?mod=newsviewer_click

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp

Robinhood Stockholder’s Concern if SBF’s Holdings are Being Seized

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Matt (Flickr)

Could There be an Impact on Robinhood Shareholders with the SBF Share Seizure

Creditors and customers of FTX may be able to reclaim some assets that were wiped out as the feds have been seizing the 7.50% stake in Robinhood (HOOD) stock held by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). SBF faces charges of fraud and a myriad of financial crimes after the collapse of FTX in November. The impact of the collapse is having an effect on other areas of finance, including assets that had been controlled by SBF. The Robinhood shares are valued near $450 million, and while this may bring some hope or relief to those that will receive a distribution, there is a risk to HOOD investors.

Background

The FTX bankruptcy has left a line of claimants to recapture what they can from the cryptocurrency giant. Bankruptcies are seldom easy; those that could involve layers of fraud become tied up in even larger disputes and legal battles. For example, the large Robinhood holding is tied up in a dispute between FTX and bankrupt crypto lender BlockFi. The company alleges that SBF put up the shares as collateral for a loan to Alameda Research, a company he also owned.

The HOOD stake was purchased in 2022 through a holding company SBF controlled, Robinhood of course is the innovative broker specializing in self-directed individual investors. Through the DOJ, authorities are going after the shares of HOOD and accounts that are held at the bank Silvergate Capital (SI) which is a banker for the crypto industry.

Separately, court filings on January 4th brought awareness to a NY federal judge ordered last month requiring the seizure of some $93 million that an FTX arm held in accounts at Silvergate. As it relates to this seizure. The Justice Department says it believes the assets seized are not the property of the bankruptcy estate, while a lawyer for FTX maintains that the seizures were from accounts not directly controlled by the company. They were ordered in connection with the criminal case involving SBF.  

 FTX investors’ asset claims in the exchange, which was once valued at $32 billion, come after creditors and other rightful claimants.

How This Could Impact Robinhood Shareholders

Asset seizures and later distribution to those hurt by fraud involve liquidation of the assets seized. In the case of stocks, they will be sold and turned into cash. Imagine a sudden effort to sell 7.50% of any company. That is a large percentage to move. The stake, worth between $400 and $500 million, may serve as a dark cloud depressing share prices and slowing any planned growth of the company. It may eventually culminate in liquidation at a pace not conducive to retaining a level stock price.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.theblock.co/post/199271/doj-seizing-millions-in-robinhood-shares-linked-to-ftx-lawyer-says

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-ordered-seizure-of-money-from-ftx-digital-markets-accounts-at-silvergate-11672866368

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ftx-robinhood-doj-assets-51672932192?mod=hp_LATEST

The Week Ahead – CPI and Last FOMC Decision in 2022

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

FOMC Meeting and “Wall Street Wish List” May Impact Your Portfolio Most

Is the Fed really tightening lending rates to cool the economy? Because consumer rates have been headed lower since October. This last FOMC meeting of 2022 may help the markets to understand that something has to give. A 7.7% y-o-y CPI, a 3.75-4.00% Fed Funds target, and a 3.45% 20-year constant maturity treasury can not co-exist for long. Treasury investors either need to earn more to keep up with expected inflation realities, inflation needs to show a more certain downtrend or the Fed needs to go back to lowering Fed Funds levels. Having lived through the last three years of markets, which I can attest from experience, are very different from the previous 30 years, I’m still putting my money on what the Fed Chairman tells us he’s doing. However, markets being what they are will move with the moves of the masses, and that is what’s “right” because that is what makes money.  

The December FOMC meeting is front and center this week. We also get a new CPI report pre-meeting. Expect volatility, especially with longer-term treasuries already priced for a great CPI number.

Data Source: U.S. Treasury Dept.

Monday 12/12

  • 2:00 PM ET, Treasury Statement, forecasters see a $200.0 billion deficit in November that would compare with a $191.3 billion deficit in November a year ago and a deficit in October this year of $87.8 billion. The government’s fiscal year began in October. The size of the budget deficit is important because it impacts the amount of treasury issuance, and then supply and demand take over in terms of interest rates demanded to fill the supply.

Tuesday 12/13

  • 6:00 AM ET, Optimism is expected to remain low. The small business optimism index has been below the historical average of 98 for ten months in a row and deeply so in October at 91.3. November’s consensus is 90.8.
  • 8:30 AM ET, CPI for November is the first information with potential market-altering data to be released this week. It will be the last look at CPI for a month during 2022. CPI is expected to be 0,% for the month or 7.3% y-o-y. Do you remember how the market rallied on the better than the consensus 7.7% last month? Any deviation from the consensus could cause an impact.

Wednesday 12/14

  • 8:30 AM ET, Atlanta Fed Business Inflation Expectations for December. While we have no consensus data, The Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations survey came in last month at 3.3% expected. The survey number provides a monthly measure of year-ahead inflation expectations and inflation uncertainty from the perspective of firms. The survey also provides a monthly gauge of firms’ current sales, profit margins, and unit cost changes.
  • 2:00 PM ET, FOMC Announcement, let the trading week unofficially begin as markets shuffle with new information from the 2:00 PM announcement and press conference that follows. After a series of 75 bp moves, the Fed is expected to be less aggressive with a 50 bp increase.

Thursday 12/15

  • 8:30 AM ET, Jobless Claims for the December 10 week are expected to come in at 230,000, or unchanged from the prior week. A large deviation from this number could move markets as employment is a Fed mandate.
  • 9:00 AM ET, Wall Street Wish List. Seasoned Analysts from Noble Capital Market’s veteran team discuss the sectors and companies they cover and perhaps provide actionable ideas as to where they may lean in the year ahead. Information for free online event is here.

Friday 12/16

  • 9:45 AM ET, PMI Composite Flash. At 46.2 in November, the services PMI has been sinking deeper into contraction though expectations for December’s flash is a little slower pace of contraction at 46.5. Manufacturing, at 47.7 in November, is expected little changed at 47.8.

What Else

The weekly focus is on the FOMC decision and press conference. Register for Channelchek emails and receive our synopsis of the FOMC outcome immediately post announcement.

It may turn out that the Wall Street Wish List is the most profitable sharing of ideas that you receive headed into the new year. Don’t miss this by clicking on the banner below to allow you free access.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Information

Sources

https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_long_term_rate&field_tdr_date_value=2022

https://econoday.com