vineri, 21 decembrie 2012

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Fed Truncates Non-Performing Loan Data Series; Is the Fed Hiding Something?
Merkel's Hypocritical, Undeserved Self-Praise; German Taxpayers at Serious Risk of Uncontrolled "Transfer Union" Budgets
Congressional Spending Problem in Easy to Understand Format; It's Only Make Believe

Fed Truncates Non-Performing Loan Data Series; Is the Fed Hiding Something?

Posted: 21 Dec 2012 11:36 AM PST

Reader Wendy pinged me with a question I have no answer for: What happened to the Fed data series on non-performing loans?

Here is the link: Assets at Banks whose ALLL exceeds their Nonperforming Loans (LLRNPT).

Reader Wendy writes ...

The original series showed how banks always had 90% or above allowance for loan and lease losses until the 2008 financial crisis. It then dropped like a stone to 15%. It has been gradually struggling up since then and is now 35%.

The old data series showed how pathetically inadequate the reserves are and how slow the recovery (actually, non-recovery since about 2/3 of loan and lease losses are not covered!).

The new series makes the "recovery" look significant. I'm amazed that the Fed did this.

Mish, please take a look at this and comment to your wide readership.

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas,
Regards,
Wendy

Hello Wendy, Merry Christmas to you and all my readers as well.

I do not know when this happened, or why, so I cannot comment on that. However, I have a few historical charts to show from late 2009, and I have some thoughts on the data series following the charts.

Current Truncated Chart

Click on any chart for sharper image

To show you what Wendy is asking about, here are a few charts that I captured in 2009.

Assets at banks whose ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans

Banks with Total Assets from $1B to $10B where ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans

Banks with Total Assets from $1B to $10B (Pacific Region) where ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans

Banks with Total Assets over $20B where ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans

Remember that allowances for loan losses will decrease as charge offs increase. However, the above charts are in relation to non-performing loans.

Description of Allowances for Loan & Lease Losses

To understand the importance of ALLL, inquiring minds are reading a description of Allowances for Loan & Lease Losses.

Businesses try to predict, on an ongoing basis, the amount of loss in their accounts. They take periodic charges to earnings to better match losses to periods when they occurred. Banks do this as well. They use current income, through the provision for loan and lease losses, to create and build a reserve to absorb losses.

The ALLL can be increased another way. When the bank collects on previously charged-off loans, the amount recovered goes into the ALLL.

Charged-off loans decrease the ALLL. If a bank decides it has overestimated its potential loss exposure, it can choose to reduce its ALLL and add the amount to its income. This is known as making "reverse provisions" for loan and lease losses, because the bank decreases the allowance, or reserve amount, rather than increasing the provision. It is rare for a bank to make a reverse provision, however, because of the imprecise nature of determining an appropriate reserve.

One last point to remember with respect to the reserve is that the ALLL is a general reserve. Therefore, even if a bank analyzes and estimates the loss on each loan, the allowance is there to absorb all losses in the loan portfolio and is not specific to a particular loan.

Implications

Because allowances for loan losses are a direct hit to earnings, and because allowances are at ridiculously low levels, bank earnings have been wildly over-stated.

Thanks Wendy.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Merkel's Hypocritical, Undeserved Self-Praise; German Taxpayers at Serious Risk of Uncontrolled "Transfer Union" Budgets

Posted: 21 Dec 2012 10:52 AM PST

Praise from German chancellor Angela Merkel is typically hard to come by. However, Merkel is freely distributing praise these days, to the person least-deserving, herself.

As the eurozone marches down the "Road to Shared Liability" Germans are largely unaware of the Hidden Risks of the Euro-Zone Bank Oversight Plan risks that Merkel ignored when agreeing to the eurozone oversight plan last week.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was full of praise for the euro-zone bank oversight plan passed last week at the EU summit in Brussels. But the deal is not nearly as watertight as she claimed. It lacks a legal foundation and could lead to a conflict of interest at the highest levels of the European Central Bank.

Angela Merkel received recognition from the highest possible level -- herself. The most recent resolutions made by the European Union in its ongoing effort to save the common currency, she said last Thursday, "can't be spoken of highly enough." Her administration had been able to "push through Germany's core demands," she said.

Self praise, of course, is often inaccurate. But in this case, the gap between fiction and reality is particularly wide. The agreement reached by European leaders and their finance ministers during last week's summits in Brussels could ultimately destroy Merkel's reputation as a level-headed and firm savior of the common currency.

Merkel has tirelessly called for EU leaders to push forward with the political integration of Europe. But at the most recent EU summit, she personally ensured that plans to that effect, created by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, didn't even make it onto the agenda. At the same time, German Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schäuble voted in favor of a new banking supervisory agency under the authority of the European Central Bank.

It is a plan that Germany's own central bankers view with concern. Lawyers at the Bundesbank object that the responsibilities of the new super-agency remain nebulous. The project has no "lasting, sustainable legal foundation," they say.

The German Vision

No longer is "more Europe" the focus of EU efforts. Instead, German taxpayers could be made liable for billions in risk taken on by large European financial institutions. There is little left of Merkel's motto calling for "increased liability only in the case of increased integration."

Not Enough Legal Protections

Merkel was unsuccessful in ensuring that larger euro-zone members have more influence in the oversight agency. As has been the case thus far in the ECB, a vote from Malta counts just as much as a vote from Germany. It is a situation that makes in possible for expensive bailout packages for Irish or Spanish banks to be pushed through despite German opposition.

No wonder, then, that financially powerful countries outside the euro zone are less than impressed by the new banking watchdog. The oversight regime is open to non-euro-zone EU members as well, but Sweden, for example, isn't even considering it. The risk, says Finance Minister Anders Borg, is simply too great. "We don't believe it contains enough legal protection for taxpayers," he says, "so that they won't be made liable for mistakes made by foreign banks."

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, chancellor Merkel is willing to sell her soul and German taxpayers down the river if that is what it takes to create a nannyzone.

And what a nannyzone it will be, if a vote from Malta or Portugal counts as much as a vote from Germany or France. It's no wonder that Euroskepticism on Rise in New EU Members.

Indeed, citizens from Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic are all having doubts about joining the eurozone, even if some of the political leaders of those countries are willing to proceed full speed ahead.

The Czech president is one of those thinking clearly. He went so far as to call the ESM a "monstrous and outrageous thing". Merkel does not care about such matters. Her vision is that of a combined Europe, regardless of what it takes, or who is damaged in the process.

Since no one else in Germany is singing Merkel's praises at the moment, she (like all politicians) is willing to do that herself.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Congressional Spending Problem in Easy to Understand Format; It's Only Make Believe

Posted: 21 Dec 2012 01:57 AM PST

Since 2000, how much has your average hourly wage gone up?

If you are in the upper crust, the answer may be staggering. If not, perhaps the following chart more closely resembles your experience.

Average Hourly Earnings 2000-2012

Just the Facts Ma'am

The average hourly earnings was $13.75 on January 1, 2000.
The average hourly earnings is currently $19.84.
Since 2000, average hourly earnings are up 44.29%

Bear in mind, those are averages. Don't be surprised if you are much worse off because of distributional skew (huge wage increases at the high end pull the average up).

Moreover, the above chart does not reflect sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, gasoline taxes, fees, etc., all of which are way higher now than in 2000. In other words, the chart reflects average hourly wages, not spendable income.

Actual spendable income is up far less than 44%.

It's a peculiar thing how the CPI does not properly account for tax hikes.

While pondering those thoughts, please consider federal spending.

Federal Spending

The following table will show without a doubt the purported "revenue problem" in Congress, is without a doubt really an "out of control spending problem".

Department	2000	2012 estimate	Percentage Increase
Legislative Branch	2,871	5,253	82.97
Judicial Branch	4,057	7,581	86.86
Department of Agriculture	75,071	150,680	100.72
Department of Commerce	7,788	11,326	45.43
Department of Defense--Military Programs	281,028	688,254	144.91
Department of Education	33,476	98,467	194.14
Department of Energy	14,971	38,998	160.49
Department of Health and Human Services	382,311	871,836	128.04
Department of Homeland Security	13,159	60,443	359.33
Department of Housing and Urban Development	30,781	56,788	84.49
Department of the Interior	7,998	11,241	40.55
Department of Justice	16,846	34,556	105.13
Department of Labor	31,873	127,157	298.95
Department of State	6,687	29,937	347.69
Department of Transportation	41,555	84,135	102.47
Department of the Treasury	390,524	579,618	48.42
Department of Veterans Affairs	47,044	129,186	174.61
Corps of Engineers--Civil Works	4,229	9,184	117.17
Other Defense Civil Programs	32,801	51,991	58.50
Environmental Protection Agency	7,223	9,352	29.48
Executive Office of the President	283	414	46.29
General Services Administration	74	1,083	1363.51
International Assistance Programs	12,087	25,554	111.42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration	13,428	17,637	31.34
National Science Foundation	3,448	8,281	140.17
Office of Personnel Management	48,655	87,462	79.76
Small Business Administration	-421	3,157
Social Security Administration (On-Budget)	45,121	188,552	317.88
Social Security Administration (Off-Budget)	396,169	638,509	61.17
Other Independent Agencies (On-Budget)	8,803	53,199	504.33
Other Independent Agencies (Off-Budget)	2,029	-5,120
Allowances	..........	125
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts	-173,019	-279,289	61.42
(On-budget)	-105,586	-151,066	43.07
(Off-budget)	-67,433	-128,223	90.15
Total outlays	1,788,950	3,795,547	112.17

Problem in a Nutshell

Average salaries are up 44%.
US spending is up 112%.

The idea behind this post comes from a friend, Bob Gudas.

The numbers are from OMB Historical Tables. The spreadsheet is from Table 3.1 Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940-2017.

I downloaded the excel spreadsheet, hid all columns except 2000 and 2012, then calculated the percentage difference discarding a few columns where the numbers were negative or the calculations infinite.

Military Spending

Wages are up 44%, military spending is up 145%, total outlays are up 112%.

Let's dig deeper.

What are veteran's affairs programs and homeland security? By any rational measure of sanity, those programs constitute defense spending.

How much of NASA is really defense spending? How much of department of education spending is free tuition for those putting in military service? What about the department of state? How much of the cost of building the embassy in Iraq and other places is buried there?

Let's go further yet and investigate the 2012 OMB budget. Specifically, consider the separate budget item of $96.7 billion for "Overseas Contingency Operations".

Where was that line item in 2000?

What about the "National Intelligence Program" at 52.6 billion? Is that not defense?

Let's ignore all of that and simply total up Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs.

2000 Total (281,028 + 13,159 + 47,044) = 341,231
2012 Total (688,254 + 60,443 + 129,186) = 877,883
Percentage Increase 157%

I suggest defense spending is out of control, as is nearly everything else.

Medicare and Medicaid

Medicare and Medicaid are not broken out in the spreadsheet, so here are the numbers from the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (which contains the most current estimate of 2012 spending), and the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget (which contains actual spending for 2000).

Medicare 2000: 200,588
Medicare 2012: 480,202

Medicaid 2000: 117,744
Medicaid 2012: 283,597

Medicare spending is up 139%
Medicaid spending is up 140%

Where's the Problem?

All things considered, what's the bigger problem? Failure to collect more taxes, or out of control spending?

It's Only Make Believe

Regardless of your answer to the preceding question, one thing is for certain: The purported effort to balance the budget is nothing more than an exercise in make believe.

With a tip of the hat to Conway Twitty I offer this musical tribute.

Can we get President Obama, Ben Bernanke, and John Boehner to do a remake? If so, we need background vocals. I propose Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Hank Paulson, Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, along with international rock stars Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe, and Mario Monti.

We just need one slight change in the lyrics.

People see us everywhere.
They think "we" really care.
But myself, I can't deceive,
I know it's only make believe.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

"Wine Country" Economic Conference Hosted By Mish
Click on Image to Learn More

Your Pinterest Weekly Email: 6 Recommended Boards

Hi, Hari!

Trending on Pinterest...

Is cooking, traveling, dressing up and last-minute shopping. Patagonia, Refinery29, Esquire, the TODAY Show and Paula Deen are all pinning for "30 Days of Pinspiration" to help out with your plans. Happy holidays and happy pinning everyone!