mot

WHDH, the Boston NBC affiliate, reports that a woman committed suicide because she thought that her mortgage lender was on the verge of foreclosing on her house. There are questions about whether she knew the mortgage company had granted her an extension. But those questions were not resolved before she took her life.

The Patriot Ledger reported that she faxed a suicide note to her mortgage lender. It excerpted her fax: "By the time you foreclose on my house I'll be dead." It also indicated that a suicide note found next to the body urged the woman's husband and son to "take the insurance money and pay for the house."

The woman and the mortgage company did not communicate clearly. The Patriot Ledger noted that the woman had asked the mortgage company for an extension and been granted one. Yet interested buyers showed up at the property expecting an auction while her body was still inside. It also interviewed a neighbor who said that her husband, a plumber, had replaced the backyard deck on the couple's home so he must have had some money.

Bloomberg News reports that the 8,500 banks and S&Ls in the U.S. hold $8.56 billion worth of foreclosed homes on their balance sheets. And most of those $6.9 billion, are held by two companies -- Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). They hold 81% of the foreclosed properties but 50% of the mortgages -- more evidence that Fannie and Freddie financed far more bad loans than their standards should have permitted.

This inventory of foreclosed homes weighs down the entire housing market. Generally, such homes sell for a 20% discount -- and that's not good for the prices in the neighborhood. Bloomberg reports that the prices received for foreclosed properties have declined -- from 93% in 2005 to 74% of the unpaid mortgage principal. Moreover, unless the bank pays to cut the grass and otherwise maintain the foreclosed home, its poor curb appeal taints the neighborhood a bit for potential buyers.

It's officially a trend because it's happened more than three times -- a bad financial report leads to a spike in stock prices. (I posted here and here about this phenomenon with Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) respectively). Now, the New York Times reports that five banks lost billions, or saw their profits plunge, but their stock prices rose an average of 12.9% in the wake of those reports.

Why? The conventional wisdom suggests that investors expected them to do much worse and were pleasantly surprised. And this phenomenon is not confined to banks -- this morning, Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO), which reported a penny less profit per share than the 10 cents analysts had expected, is up 3% in premarket, reportedly because it did not lower its guidance.

I am not convinced by conventional wisdom about why these stocks are up. My hunch is that there were many traders who sold short the stocks of these companies because they expected them to do worse than they actually did. When reported results beat expectations, investors bought the stocks, perhaps due to bottom fishing. These buyers caused the stocks to rise enough to trigger margin calls for those who were short. The shorts bought to satisfy those margin requirements, causing a buying panic. I wish I had data to test this hypothesis.

The New York Times reports that the cost to bailout Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) could hit $25 billion. But that cost dwarfs what the collapse of the real estate market might cost our country in total. I think $8 trillion is a reasonable estimate -- that's about 56% of our $14.2 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Why are we talking about a taxpayer bailout of these two government sponsored entities (GSEs)? After all, shareholders own them but there's some vague notion that since they're GSEs, government should bailout the investors who bought their $5.2 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs).

So how did the government pick the $25 billion figure? It turns out that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't know how much the bailout will cost. So it is developing different scenarios. One suggests that a bailout will cost nothing. Another suggests that there's a 5% chance that the bailout will cost $100 billion. I think this means that the bailout has an expected value of $5 billion (the chance of the scenario times its cost). Regardless, the CBO's $25 billion looks like it will be joined by an estimate that follows the Fed and OCC's look at the books of Fannie and Freddie.

Bloomberg News reports that General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) has cut a deal with Mubadala Development Co., a fund owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, which will yield $8 billion in capital to invest in financial services assets in the Middle East. Mubadala also plans to become one of the 10 biggest investors in GE stock through open market purchases. Depending on which assets they buy, this could be good news for long-suffering GE shareholders.

Bloomberg reports that GE and Mubadala will each contribute "$4 billion in equity over three years to the fund, aiming to reach $40 billion in assets." But today's partnership is more modest. Bloomberg reports that GE will also invest "$50 million in Masdar's Clean Tech fund, while Mubadala will invest $200 million in GE Industrial Investment Partners, a new program to provide development money to health-care, energy and transportation industries."

The benefit for shareholders will be longer term, if at all. That's because GE did not change its forecast for 2008 as a result of the announcement -- in April GE CEO Jeff Immelt predicted earnings may rise "zero to 5 percent, to $2.20 to $2.30 a share in 2008." At this point, it looks like GE's biggest earnings growth opportunity is in the oil rich regions of the world and those developing nations, like China and India, where that oil is being consumed.

Today's deal looks like it will increase GE's exposure to these opportunities.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns GE shares.

The New York Times reports that as the White House pushes Congress to fund its bailout of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), it is finally getting around to scrutinizing their financial condition. Is there any chance that the inspection will NOT reveal a critical need for the Congressional bailout? No. That investigation is guaranteed to support the White House's case.

The Times reports that the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) will be inspecting Fannie and Freddie's books. This comes at a time when the Office of Federal Housing Oversight (OFHEO), which should have been tracking their condition, is due to be wiped out.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that Fannie and Freddie are on the hook for some big obligations. They owe $1.5 trillion; they "own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages"; and they have derivative contracts to hedge $2 trillion worth of mortgage risks. I am curious what else the Fed and the OCC will be looking for as they inspect the books. I hope they can figure out how much cash Fannie and Freddie have available to pay off their obligations over time. But why doesn't the government know this already?

Dark Knight, the Batman movie starring Heath Ledger, did boffo box office: $158.3 million, according to Defamer. But this blockbuster will not just benefit Warner Brothers and DC Comics, which share parent Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) with BloggingStocks. There are at least six companies that will benefit from Dark Knight's success. According to Seeking Alpha, these companies include:

• Time Warner -- through its Warner Brothers and DC Comics subsidiaries are profiting most directly.
• Comcast Corporation (NYSE: CMCSA) partnered with Warner Bros. to offer "behind-the-scenes footage, trailers, and mini movies on demand"
• Verizon Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VZ) and Nokia Corporation (NYSE: NOK) collaborated in creating the Nokia6205 The Dark Knight Edition. Seeking Alpha reports that "This batphone targets superfans, with bat wallpaper, voice tones, screensavers, and the film's trailer pre-loaded."

The New York Post reports that concerns remain over Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs health after he appeared thin at recent developers conferences. This is making investors nervous since it's not likely that anyone can do as good a job as Apple CEO. And Apple's board may have a duty to report on Jobs' health if he can't perform his duties.

I became familiar with this legal requirement two years ago when questions were raised to me about the health of Lazard Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) CEO, Bruce Wasserstein. The basic requirement for a board is unclear. As I wrote: "it appears that there are two conflicting points of view on the topic. On the one hand, the illness of the CEO -- particularly one as highly regarded as Wasserstein -- is material information under Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) that could cause an investor to sell if it was disclosed. On the other hand, laws such as The Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPAA) protect the privacy of employee medical records."

In 2003, Jobs had a bout with pancreatic cancer. He recently appears to have lost a significant amount of weight according to the Post. In the case of Jobs, he seems to be appearing in public and doing his job, but the prospect that he might soon be out of Apple's developing picture does not bode well for investors. The lack of comment from Apple seems ominous to me. Meanwhile, Apple is expected to report EPS of $1.08 on revenue of $7.36 billion, according to First Call estimates.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

The latest balance sheet of the Federal Reserve makes me wonder whether it's solvent. That's because its balance sheet has clearly deteriorated in the last year. And with $40 billion in capital, that deterioration could take a big bite out of the Fed's capital.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about how the Fed gets its capital or how it accounts for the value of its assets and liabilities to be able to do more than raise questions. But here are three things that concern me:

• Declining asset quality. The total value of the U.S. Treasury securities on the Fed's balance sheet declined by $312 billion between July 2007 and this July -- a 43% drop in this highest quality asset.
• Increase in shakier assets. During this same period, the balance in Term Auction Facilities -- the credit line that investment banks are using to get their shakier assets -- such as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) off their balance sheets --increased from $0 to $150 billion. Another $29 billion in assets come from Maiden Lane, LLC -- the entity created for the Fed to take on the toxic waste that sank Bear Stearns.
• High leverage. While the Fed has more capital backing up its assets than the typical investment bank -- which holds $1 of capital for every $32 in assets -- the Fed is still highly leveraged -- with only $1 of capital for every $23 of assets -- it borrows the rest. Put another way, if the Fed was forced to account for its balance sheet on a mark-to-market basis, a mere 4.5% decline in the value of the Fed's assets would wipe out its capital.

These observations raise questions in my mind:

CNNMoney reports that Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) reports that its earnings fell 41% in the second quarter to 72 cents a share. In response, its stock is up 11% in pre-market. Why the celebration? Analysts expected Bank of America's earnings to tumble 48% to 53 cents, so it beat those expectations by 19 cents a share.

According to CNNMoney. Bank of America's revenue was up 14.6% to $20.32 billion during the quarter due to "wider net interest margins, loan growth and higher income from mortgage banking and the company's investment and brokerage services." Thomson Reuters surveyed analysts who expected revenue of $18.37 billion -- 10% lower than its actual results.

I am wondering whether some investors will think we have bottomed out of the banking crisis. I think it's too early to break out the champagne, but the coming rally could be a good time for nervous investors to bail out. That's because credit losses could keep rising -- Bank of America added $5.8 billion to reserves for bad loans and its Countrywide purchase could boost those reserves far more in coming quarters.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Reuters reports that Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) has announced that it will add activist investor, Carl Icahn, who owns 5% of Yahoo stock, to its board. Why?

Yahoo's board picked what it thought was the lesser of two evils. It could have spent time on a proxy contest in which Icahn's slate of directors would replace the current board at the August 1 shareholders meeting, or it could just expand the board from nine to 11, taking on Icahn and two others from his slate, since only 8 of Yahoo's current directors are standing for reelection.

This reminds me of a line from The Godfather: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." I don't know the way the Yahoo board makes decisions but if Icahn can't persuade at least three other of its current board members to go along with him -- to get a 6-5 majority -- he is likely not to have much of an impact on Yahoo's fate.

And so the drama continues. Meanwhile, investors have traded Yahoo down 1.7% in premarket.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Yahoo securities.

This morning's announcement that Roche wants to pay $43.7 billion for the 44.1% of Genentech (NASDAQ: DNA) it doesn't already own raises the question: "Why is Genentech worth so much to Roche?" The answer: it outperforms its competitors when it comes to innovation.

Roche is offering a 9% premium to Genentech's market value at Friday's close. Reuters reports that Roche wants Genentech's $2.6 billion (2008 estimated sales) Avastin, a colorectal cancer treatment, and Herceptin, a $1.3 billion (estimated 2008 sales) breast cancer drug, as well as Genentech's drug development portfolio.

Roche also expects to save $750 million to $850 million in pretax costs, but the long-term benefit would be for Genentech's innovative culture to take over the relatively dry drug development environment of Roche. If that doesn't happen, the deal could be unprofitable for both companies.

What bothers me about last weekend's vague plan to bail out Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) is that it fails to solve the basic problem they face. The problem is that nobody is willing to put a hard number on what proportion of the mortgages they guarantee are likely to keep making their monthly payments ("good assets") and which are not ("bad assets").

If we analyze that split, we may be able to lower the cost of bailing them out by putting the good assets in a "good bank" and the bad assets in a "bad bank." Shareholders would probably be happy to buy stock in the good bank. And owners of the bad bank could either write off their holdings or seek to refinance them. Similarly, the holders of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) around the world would no doubt be delighted to know what proportion of their MBSs are good and what proportion are bad.

I have heard scare tactics which suggest that Fannie and Freddie control half the mortgage market and we can't afford to let them fail. But what if 90% of their mortgages are likely to keep paying and 10% are not? We would then be faced with what to do about the $500 billion of bad MBSs that Fannie and Freddie supposedly guarantee. Could we afford to let $500 billion of MBS holders lose their investment? We had no trouble letting dot-com investors lose trillions of dollars worth of their investments back in 2000.

The Associated Press reports that a "Depression Era" mentality is taking hold among consumers. This matters to the overall economy since 70% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth depends on consumer spending. Maybe this is good news because it will make people care more about spiritual matters, and less about material ones.

AP bolsters its consumer mentality shift with excerpts from a Nielsen survey that interviewed 50,000 consumers by e-mail during the first week of June. The survey found that

• 63% of consumers are cutting spending due to rising gas prices, up 18 percentage points from a year ago;
• 78% of consumers are combining shopping trips;
• 52% are eating out less often;
• Consumers are cutting more coupons;
• They do more of their shopping at super centers; and
• They buy less expensive brands.
  

The New York Times reports that there's a price to pay for your staycation. As I posted, many people are skipping their summer vacations and staying at home thanks to the litany of economic problems we've become all too familiar with in the last year.

Here are some of the ways that people pay the price for not taking a vacation:

• Health risk. The Times reports that men who skipped vacations for five straight years had a 30% higher chance of suffering a heart attack than those who took an extended annual break from work each year. It notes that Brooks B. Gump, an associate professor of psychology at SUNY Oswego and a colleague, Karen A. Matthews believe that vacations help the brain build "reserve capacity" which helps it "cope with stressors that come up."
• Discouragement. The Times also quotes Hollister H. Hovey, a public relations executive who lives in Brooklyn, who postponed a trip to Scandinavia this summer because of high air fares and the weak dollar. She said: "It's a tremendous disappointment that you're sort of stuck here. It's too expensive to drive, too expensive to go overseas, because you can't afford to fly, and once you're there, you can't shop. I know that travel is a luxury. But it really plays on the heart and minds of people, because people need that escape."