(Reader note 1: posting will be light through the weekend….taking a few days off)
The tax code has a particularly odd quirk next year. The estate tax, which has decreased steadily from 50% to 45 % over the past few years, will drop to zero in 2010. To get the repeal passed, however, Bush 43 agreed to a sunset provision that brings the tax right back in 2011.
Hedgie Tepper on pace to make $2.5 billion this year (WSJ) The moral hazard trade has a new face. Tepper bet big that government would rescue bank shareholders and creditors. He was right. Can we blame him? He didn’t make the rules; he just played the game better than the rest once they were made.
Wow….huge night….$14.5 billion in combined assets from tonight’s failures. The biggest fish is First Fed, with $6.1 billion of assets. First Fed was the last of the big option ARM lenders. Seems like FDIC wants to get a lot off its plate before the holidays…
(Reader note: still working on
MUST READ — Strict framework leaves room for maneuver (Masters/Jenkins, FT) While this subject may seem a little dry, it’s the Basel Committee in Switzerland that will lead the way when it comes to how banks measure capital and how much they need to have. I’ll offer more detailed thoughts on this later today.
Fed repeats “exceptionally low” for “an extended period” (Fed statement) The Fed maintains that it isn’t raising rates for the foreseeable future, but repeated that it plans to end MBS asset purchases by April next year. Too bad we can’t get a surprise rate hike in order to chase risk back out of credit markets…
Due to new accounting rules — FAS 166 and 167 — banks have to bring certain off balance sheet assets back onto their balance sheets starting next year. More assets, same capital = lower capital ratios. (More in this column about the individual impact on the large banks).
Substantial bank losses needed to fix housing (Bloomberg) To avoid foreclosures, principal has to be written down. That implies hefty losses, especially for banks that hold lots of home equity loans on their balance sheet. Such loans get wiped out before first mortgages lose a penny. Complicating matters, many big banks service both the first and the second mortgage, which means they are highly conflicted. They don’t want to eat a loss on the second mortgage, even if writing it down would make the first perform much better…