Credit Insurers in Trouble

Reuters reports today that ACA Capital Holdings will be delisted by the New York Stock Exchange. ACA "provides financial guaranty insurance products to participants in the global credit derivatives markets, structured finance capital markets and municipal finance capital markets." In other words, it is a "monoline" credit insurer, just like MBIA and Ambac, that I have mentioned before on my "black list". ACA's shares have fallen from about $15 in June to about $0.50 today. Their latest economic report (from September 2007) is rather interesting - a net loss of about $-1 billion for the last quarter - total equity now about $-0.88 billion - meaning they are essentially bankrupt. The interesting thing is they have "insured" about $68 billion of "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), a form of repackaged debt. Now all that "insurance" is basically worthless. Who owns on all those "insured" CDOs? How did a company that had about $6 billion in total assets at the end of 2006 get to "insure" more than ten times as much in debt? It doesn't take a very high default rate on the underlying loans to erase the company. And who was stupid enough to pay for "insurance" from them? And by how many billions of dollars will they have to write their CDO assets down?
Now ACA is a comparatively small player in the CDS field. Ambac is one of the two biggest "monolines", and yesterday Bloomberg reported that Ambac reinsures $29 billion with Assured Guaranty Ltd., to "avoid the crippling loss of its AAA credit rating". On 5 December, Moody's basically gave Ambac and MBIA two weeks to raise more money or risk a credit rating downgrade. Ambac "guarantees" a mind-boggling $556 billion of securities, with total assets of only $22 billion and total equity of only $5.6 billion (as of September economic report). And they are losing money ($0.36 billion last quarter - I expect much more this quarter, cf. estimates for MBIA below). The deal with Assured Guaranty doesn't really change that much for Ambac - the riskiest debts are not included in the deal. And Ambac have so far not managed to raise any more money.
MBIA seems to be slightly better off - they managed to raise $1 billion from Warburg Pincus. MBIA "guarantees" $652 billion of securities, but their financial status is stronger than Ambac's - $45 billion in total assets, $6.5 billion in total equity and only lost $37 million last quarter. However, Barclays Capital expects MBIA to post losses of between $2.3 billion and $4.2 billion, which would of course make their financial situation precarious to say the least.
Now the string of credit insurers going bust seems to have started with ACA, and I expect Ambac to follow within a few months. MBIA could survive a year, perhaps. Some people might even think this is optimistic. According to Bloomberg "If all the companies were to falter, $2.4 trillion of insured securities would be thrown into doubt, costing as much as $200 billion". My guess is that cost is underestimated, as with all costs so far in this credit mess. However, the biggest risk if the credit insurers falter is that many of those who now hold the "insured" debt are only allowed to hold investment grade rated debt, or have a maximum percentage of non-investment grade debt that they may hold. This means that they would have to sell the "insured" debt if the insurers fail or are downgraded. This sudden selling would lead to lower prices for these classes of debt, thereby increasing losses, if buyers can be find at all in these frozen credit markets.
Ironically, Ambac announced yesterday that "International Securitisation Report (ISR) has named Ambac Monoline Insurer of the Year". Wow! Sounds really great, doesn't it? And it gets better: "Ambac has had an active year closing many noteworthy transactions. This award underscores the company's ability to use our in-depth knowledge and expertise to help issuers and financial advisors structure innovative transactions across a diverse range of asset classes and jurisdictions." It's a pity this award comes just as they seem to be on the brink of bankruptcy.

Norwegian Oil Production

The Norwegian Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen is quoted today by Verdens Gang as saying "our oil can become worthless" because of "climate taxes" on burnt oil. She said this in Bali, where she flew for the climate meeting. Of course this climate meeting burns loads of fossil fuels just to get all the politicians there. But I suppose it is important that they get to discuss this, and shine a bit in the press before reality comes swooping in and they can't fly that much or that far any more. Later a spokesman for Halvorsen denied "considering cutting oil production for environmental concerns" and that "There is nothing in the government (program) declaration about a reduction in the pace of production" and "it was not an problematic issue".
However, reality says that the pace of oil production in Norway is problematic. Today Norway is the world's fifth largest oil exporter, pumping roughly 2.4 million barrels per day. However, production has fallen sharply since the top around the year 2000, and is not likely to reverse that trend. So even though what Kristin Halvorsen said was a bit confused, it is likely that they will have to use some kind of cover-up for why they are reducing their oil production.
Also, implying that their oil will become worth less in the future is pure nonsense. With world oil production probably in permanent decline, the remaining oil will on average just become worth more and more. Of course prices will jump up and down, depending on economic factors, but the main price trend for oil is up. It might even make sense for some big producer countries to voluntarily reduce their production in order to boost the price, thereby making even more money in the long run, and saving some of their reserves for hard times. So far, however, nobody seems interested in doing this, but time will tell whether we will see such policies in the future.

Shanghai Bubble Finally Bursting?

As I have mentioned before, the Shanghai Stock Exchange has had one of the biggest bubbles in history over the last two years. The SSEC index has gone up from a low of 1067 on 28 October 2005 to a high of 6124 on 16 October 2007, an increase of 474% over less than two years!

Click the graph for a larger version.
Since then it has declined to close at 4861 on 27 November. Is this drop of more than 20% the popping of the bubble, or just another false alarm? There have been two previous big scares for Chinese investors this year, the first one in February-March, the second one in June-July, but the Shanghai Stock Exchange recovered from both of them and kept on chugging upwards. However, this latest drop is bigger (percentage-wise) than any of the previous two. If it continues, we could very well see one of the most epic stock market crashes in history.

Internet Bubble Version 2.0

Don't think the Internet bubble of 1999-2000 scared all investors away from hyperinflated Internet stocks. I'm thinking of for instance Google, currently trading at $660 per share. Alright, down a good bit from the top of $742 two weeks ago, but still dizzyingly high at a price/earnings of about 52. This means that if they manage to keep their earnings as high as now and give all of their earnings back to their shareholders (which they of course don't), it would take about 52 years for a shareholder to get his money back in dividend. Now, what if earnings start dropping, with a recession coming on? Other Internet bubble stocks right now are Amazon, with a price/earnings of about 93 (!) and Yahoo, with a price/earnings of about 50. Price/earnings this high of course means that the markets expect the earnings to increase, but just how many more advertisers want to advertise with Google or Yahoo? Or are they going to pay more for advertising there? And how many more books and CDs can Amazon sell per year? Or are they going to take higher profit margins on each sold book?
For comparison, Microsoft and Cisco both have a p/e of 22, which is still considered to be on the high side. How long would you like to wait to get your invested money back? 22 years? Make that 10 and it starts to sound like a reasonable investment.

100 Dollar Oil Soon?

I don't think anybody has missed the fact that oil prices have risen sharply over the last years. This is not only due to the drop in the dollar, but mainly caused by supply not keeping up with demand. Last spring the world had an "oil shock" when prices of crude oil (WTI) went above $75 per barrel for a while. Then prices dropped back to as low as $50 per barrel in January 2007, only to continue their climb all through the year. WTI oil was up to $98.50 per barrel on 7 November, then fell back to just above $90, and then went back up again to $99 per barrel yesterday morning, and fell back a bit later during the day.
Here's a graph of WTI oil prices since January 2006 for you:
Today, trading in oil is probably not so heavy in the USA, due to the Thanksgiving holiday. However, the North Sea Brent oil jumped up by $4 per barrel today, so if the same trend continues tomorrow, we might very well see WTI oil over $100 dollars then. This is probably a very important psychological barrier, and might cause serious repercussions across financial markets. Expect all major newspaper to have $100 oil as first page news the day after it hits us.

Oil is a major driving factor behind today's inflation, so expect to see higher inflation. Oil prices affect the price of everything. Not only will filling up your car be more expensive, but also air travel, food, and everything else. It will take longer time for the higher oil price to trickle through into some areas, but eventually it will raise prices of everything, because oil is needed to produce stuff, to transport it from the factory to the consumer, to build new factories, to build and maintain infrastructure (e.g. railways, roads, sewers). Air, car and diesel train travel will of course be hit rather fast by higher oil prices. In the long run, however, electric train travel will become more expensive too, even if the electricity comes from hydropower plants. This is because the maintenance of the railways requires diesel-driven machines. New locomotives, carriages and wagons also require oil to build them, to run the mining equipment for the raw materials, etc. In the end, maintenance of hydropower plants also requires oil.

There has been speculation over how much the price of oil has been inflated lately by hedge funds and other investors speculating in oil futures. However, there is a simple reason for the higher prices, and that is supply. The International Petroleum Monthly for October from EIA provides the simple answer that world oil production has actually declined since the top in July 2006, see chart below:
Meanwhile demand is increasing steadily, especially in places like China. The supply situation is most likely not going to improve other than temporarily, since it seems we have actually passed "peak oil" now. Many experts believe this, among them Matthew Simmons. So how is the world going to solve this problem?

• If you think nuclear power is a solution, just take a look at how uranium prices have increased over the last years. And don't forget that since 1985, uranium production has not kept up with demand. The gap has been filled by stockpiles mostly from military sources, but that cannot go on forever.
• If you think wind power is a solution, just contemplate that it would take 3 million large "wind mills" to replace the 85 million barrels of oil used per day in the world today.
• If you think hydropower is a solution, remember that there aren't all that many rivers left to harness around the world. And do we really want to sacrifice the last free running rivers?
• If you think solar power is a solution, maybe you should be aware of the fact that the silicon required to produce them is in short supply in the world today, and the situation is not likely to improve over the next couple of years.
  
• Biofuels are out of the question as a replacement, because even if we used all available farmland, we would still only be able to replace a few percent of the oil used today.
• Natural gas is not a very good replacement for oil either, because it is becoming more expensive too.
• Coal might be a feasible replacement for oil for a decade or two, before supplies start declining there too. However, it is very dirty!
• Saving energy is a solution. There are lots of ways the world, and especially the rich countries in the world, can save energy.

Higher oil prices will force the world to use energy more efficiently, but will create a lot of economical havoc in the process. Be prepared for $100 oil, and then $150 oil, and then $200 oil.

Swedish Housing Still a Bubble

My view is still that Sweden is in a housing bubble, like most western European countries. Signature "ju" asked me on a forum why I don't compare to incomes, which have risen in Sweden over the last years. So I did some more number crunching, and here's an improved version of my Swedish housing bubble graph, with a green line for inflation adjusted mean income. I've also included housing price data up to Q2 2007 and trend lines (thanks to "Kons" for suggesting trend lines).
(Data source SCB. FPI=Fastighetsprisindex småhus, Mean Income=Sammanräknad förvärvsinkomst. 1975=100 for housing prices, 1999=100 for incomes)
As you can clearly see, housing prices in Sweden have risen much faster than the average income (I only have income data for 1991-2005), so while inflation-adjusted incomes have indeed risen, we are still in a housing bubble. How far will housing prices fall?

• A fall down to the trend line is about 30%.
• A fall down to the average for 1975-2003 is about 45%.
• A fall down to the lows of the early 1990's is about 55%.

This is the whole of Sweden, and obviously the bubble is worse in "hot" housing spots. So I've made a corresponding graph for housing prices in the Stockholm area (thanks to "Kons" for suggesting this).
As you can see the graph is slightly more "bubblish" than for the whole of Sweden.

• A fall to the trend line is about 30%
• A fall to the average for 1975-2003 is about 55%
• A fall to the lows of the early 1990's is about 65%!!

Many people will of course say "it can never happen, there will always be a strong demand for housing in our capital city", but I boldly predict today that inflation-adjusted housing prices in Stockholm will probably on average go down by 65% over the next few years. Be warned, and don't forget where you heard it first. And I might even be optimistic. Considering the excesses on the upside, we could very well have similar excesses to the downside when the bubble finally bursts. And if you don't believe it could happen, don't forget that history has proved that all bubbles eventually burst, even though few believe it is possible when on the upward slope of the bubble.

Now housing bubbles burst slowly, so the process will take a few years to play out. I expect "experts" to call a bottom in housing many times during the coming years, but prices will still keep on falling.

Now what effects will such a large fall in housing prices have on the economy? Large effects, of course. Many people will be stuck with loans way bigger than the value of their home. But maybe we should ask the question the other way around - what economic events could trigger such a large fall in housing prices? Read what I have previously written on this blog about potential dangers in the world economy, and you will get some hints about what might cause such a powerful recession.

Speaking of housing bubbles, the top economic advisor of the Spanish prime minister came up with some unbelievable quotes last week:

A residential real estate slump in Spain, where prices have almost tripled since 1997, is "unthinkable," the top economic adviser of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said. [...]
"To talk about severe adjustments or a meltdown in prices is ridiculous," Taguas said in response to reports pointing to an end of the Spanish real estate boom. "That sort of crisis is unthinkable." [...]
The Spanish banking system is also solid enough to withstand rising financing costs triggered by the fallout from the surge in defaults in the U.S. subprime mortgage market. A run on mortgage- lenders such as Newcastle, U.K.-based Northern Rock Plc or funding difficulties like those at Countrywide Financial Corp. in the U.S. are "unthinkable" in Spain, Taguas said.

Remember those quotes and remind Mr. Taguas about them in a few years' time!

Extreme Events

For now, the global financial markets seem to have calmed down. But the "background noise" of bad news is still there. Since late 2006, 159 US mortgage lenders have already broken down in some way, and new ones are added to the list every week. Housing prices are still falling in the US, and the bubble seems to be about to pop in Europe too, where Spain and the UK seem to be first in line for a major housing bubble correction. Prices of oil and cereals are still rising sharply. The US dollar continues its fall. The interbank rate (e.g. LIBOR) is still well above 6 percent. Many businesses find it hard to get loans or to roll over their loans. Bloomberg reports:
"The U.S. commercial paper market shrank for a sixth week, extending the biggest slump in at least seven years"
"Commercial paper investments have declined $354.5 billion, or almost 16 percent, since the week ended Aug. 8"

I can't believe that everything is now well after a number of extreme events in August and September:

• At the beginning of August, some banks obviously had major problems, and central banks all over the world had to inject liquidity to keep the wheels going, on a scale not seen since September 2001, and in some cases never seen before.
• The US FED unexpectedly lowered the discount rate by ½ percent on 17 August.
• There was a "run on the bank" in British Northern Rock 14-18 September. When was the last time we saw a run on the bank in Britain? This was so serious that US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson suddenly decided to fly over to London to meet the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling. On 18 September the British Government announced that they would guarantee all deposits at Northern Rock. Whew! Crisis averted for some time.
• Little more than a month after Ben Bernanke said that inflation was his main worry, he lowered the Fed Funds rate and discount rate by ½ percent on 18 September. This of course caused the US dollar to fall like lead.
• Saudi Arabia did not lower the interest rate this time. They have so far followed interest rate changes in the US, and their currency is pegged to the US dollar. This of course raises fears that they will now unpeg their currency from the US dollar, which would cause mass exits from the US dollar and possibly a dollar collapse.

So what are we in for next? Crude oil is now definitely above $80/barrel. The US$ has dropped about 3% in one month. Foreclosures in the US jumped up by 36% in August, which is up 115% from August 2006! And there are still loads of ARM mortgages awaiting interest rate resets over the next couple of months.

I guess there will be a few weeks of calm before we see the next extreme event. How many extreme events can the world financial markets handle before an avalanche is set off? Don't forget that everything is tied up by trillions of dollars in derivatives.

If we get bankrupts increasing because of the problems for companies to get loans, we will see a test of the credit default swaps (CDS). The amount of CDSs outstanding is equivalent in size to total world GDP. It's already doubtful whether many issuers of CDSs can live up to their promises. And who holds all these CDSs? Default by a big enough company somewhere in the world could thus cause a cascade of bankrupts and defaults, since both the issuer and the holder of a CDS might go down, in their turn bringing down other holders and issuers of CDSs.

There are even more interest rate swaps and currency swaps than CDSs. What happens to the issuers of these when interest rates and currencies start to move quickly and in unexpected ways? And don't forget that many hedge funds speculate in these kinds of financial instruments.

Like the Chinese curse says: "May you live in interesting times..."