Tuesday, November 27, 2007

GOIH Global Capital Markets--Quantitative Finance Group.

Sponsored by SPQR Global Asset Management Corporation.

During the last two months we have developed a new company as a companion to Global 1 Investment Holdings Corp. (OTCBB:GOIH). The new company is a global asset management company specializing in the management of global assets for above average returns using our internally developed economic and financial models.

GOIH is registering the new company to trade on various exchanges throughout the world, and we will seek listings in the USA, Europe, Asia and other locals where financial exchanges are developed.

Once the company is trading, we will reward the current shareholders of GOIH with distributions varying by the number of shares owned on the date of the distribution.

We estimate we will raise up to $5.0 billion in the the first year of operations based on the performance of our quantitative models to date as the results have been posted here over the last four months.

We will offer the shareholders of GOIH an exit strategy whereby they will be able to exchange their shares of GOIH for shares in the new company.

The new company will operate as a diversified hedge fund with portfolios in :

Venture Capital
Private Equity
Special Situations
Carry Trade Dynamics
Reg. E Companies
Fixed Income
Currencies
Commodities
Internal IPO of small cap companies
Investment Banking
Merchant Banking

Monday, November 26, 2007

GOIH Global Capital Markets:E*Trade Sale May Hinge On Mortgage Portfolio

E*Trade Sale May Hinge On Mortgage Portfolio
By DENNIS K. BERMAN, SUSANNE CRAIG and MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIGNovember 26, 2007; Page A2


As E*Trade Financial Corp. moves closer to being sold, prospective suitors for the company are haggling over the value of its deteriorating mortgage portfolio, people familiar with the discussions say.
E*Trade, while best known for its discount brokerage operations, has made a big move into home mortgages, lines of credit and mortgages securities in recent years. As the housing market has declined, the value of mortgage securities has plummeted, forcing E*Trade to seek a buyer or an infusion of capital.
As of Sept. 30, the company's mortgage portfolio, including home loans and home-equity lines, was valued at $29.3 billion, and the company owns mortgage-backed securities valued at $12.4 billion. To date, it has announced $197 million in pretax write-downs on its securities portfolio, and it has set aside $237.8 million in loan-loss provisions.
Rivals looking at the books in recent days, believed to be TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. and Charles Schwab Corp., are worried that some of the assets haven't been marked to current market values, these people say. While the mortgages and related securities may not be as imperiled as the current market suggests, any buyer would need to value the assets on a mark-to-market basis.
E*Trade stock has plunged 77% in six months. The root of the company's troubles has been E*Trade Bank, which buys and originates mortgages and has acquired mortgage-backed securities. E*Trade has issued four warnings about the falling value of these assets. In mid-November, the company announced that losses would stop it from meeting its 2007 earnings target and that it wouldn't provide a new target, given market conditions.
That announcement sent E*Trade's stock down sharply, to $3.55, and prompted one stock analyst to suggest there could be a run on the bank, which the company has disputed. Friday, the stock closed at $5.33, up $1.07, or 25%, in Nasdaq Stock Market trading after CNBC reported the company was in serious negotiations with rivals to sell itself. Friday's price put the company's market capitalization at $2.28 billion. The stock traded as high as $26.08 in January.
Looming over any sale is the role of federal regulators, primarily the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees E*Trade's bank. It is unknown what stance the OTS is taking in the situation, although people involved in the process say it could end up having a critical role.
OTS could, for instance, demand that most of the proceeds of a sale be injected back into E*Trade's bank, leaving little left over for E*Trade's shareholders. Or regulators could request that E*Trade find a buyer that best insulates the struggling mortgage portfolio from the bank depositors.

Private equity gains ground in talent war.

Sponsored by : SPQR Global Asset Management Corporation.


Private equity gains ground in talent war
ByFrancesco Guerrera and Ben White in New York

Private equity is winning the war for talent against hedge funds and investment banks, luring young recruits with large pay packages in spite of the credit crunch and volatile capital markets, according to new research and industry experts.
Buyout funds’ ability to take advantage of Wall Street’s woes and attract talent is a sign of their resilience in the face of the liquidity squeeze and could help them weather the current deal drought and tough debt markets.
However, news that private equity deal-makers are continuing to add to their wealth while US average wages stagnate could fuel the political backlash against the industry and strengthen calls for higher taxes on their income.
Business school graduates who join a large buyout fund like Blackstone or Kohlberg Kravis Roberts stand to earn more than $400,000 in salary and bonus in 2007-08, plus up to $5m over several years depending on the fund’s performance, according to a new study by the executive search firm Glocap and Thomson Financial.
By contrast, first-year associates with MBA degrees at big, publicly traded investment banks can expect to make $70,000 to $80,000 in base salary plus bonuses of $60,000 to $80,000, according to Eric Moskowitz of the Options Group.
Industry experts say that years of record fund-raising have given large buyout funds the financial firepower to hire promising graduates just when Wall Street banks are cutting staff and many hedge funds have seen their performance flag.
“There is not enough all-star talent to go round and traditionally there is strong competition for it from private equity firms, hedge funds and banks,” said Brian Korb, a Glocap partner. “At the moment, however, banks have trouble fighting private equity groups.”
Unlike investment banks and hedge funds, whose compensation pool is determined by yearly results, buyout firms’ pay packages are dependent on the size and performance of funds whose life spans several years.
A senior associate with less than two years’ experience since business school will earn an average of $419,000 in 2007-08 at a buyout fund with more than $5bn under management – a 9 per cent rise over a year ago – according to the research.
But the real lure for young graduates is the multi-million dollar payout from “carried interest” – the percentage of a fund’s profit retained by private equity executives.
Senior associates can expect up to $5m over the lifetime of the fund but vice-presidents, executives with up to six years’ experience after business school stand to earn up to $14m while partners, the top management tier, can make an average of between $35m and $85m, according to the research.
Some experts warn that the worsening environment for mergers and acquisitions could make private equity less attractive to young graduates.
“Private equity funds have been on an historic run, producing results that no sector of the industry had ever seen,” said Dan Primack at Thomson. “It is going to be very interesting to see whether the current slowdown makes private equity a less hot destination.”

GOIH Global Capital Markets: A New World’s Richest Man?

A New World’s Richest Man?

This summer, the Wealth Report brought news of a new titleholder for richest man in the world: Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom tycoon. Aside from toppling the longtime leader Bill Gates, Mr. Slim’s asccendancy also heralded a new age of wealth sprouting up in emerging markets.
Now comes news that a new richest man may be on the way, this time from India. According to this Journal article by my colleague Eric Bellman, the brothers Anil and Mukesh Ambani, who control the Reliance group of companies, are now worth close to $100 billion. Elder brother Mukesh, age 50, is worth more than $45 billion on paper, while Anil, age 48, is worth $35 billion or more.
Granted, Mr. Gates, Warren Buffett and Mr. Slim aren’t in any danger of losing their titles just yet. Right now, Mukesh Ambani would come in number four on the current global Forbes list, behind the Big Three but slightly ahead of fellow Indian Lakshmi Mittal. What’s more, the Ambani fortune is just a fortune on paper, driven by a sudden and largely unexplained run-up in their stock prices. (Wealth Report readers may remember Mukesh from his rumored $1 billion home, and its 600-person staff.)
Still, the rise of the Ambanis highlights an uncomfortable truth for America: Wealth is moving overseas. The U.S. may be the capital of Richistan for now, but not for long. Increasingly, the production of millionaires and billionaires — as with the production of most goods — is moving abroad. Other countries’ economies are growing more quickly than that of the U.S. and creating wealth at a faster pace. The weaker dollar also plays a big role.
This isn’t a bad thing if you’re an aspiring millionaire in India, or an American invested overseas. The Bombay Stock Exchange’s benchmark Sensex Index, for instance, has jumped about 30% in the past three months. All that money pouring into Indian stocks has lifted the Ambanis’ yachts: The stock price of Reliance Petroleum Ltd., a refining company, has climbed 90%. Shares of Reliance Energy, a power company, have surged more than 130%, while shares of gas-trading company Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. have skyrocketed more than 250%.
As with Britain in the 1800s, the U.S. may soon become “old money” — doddering aristocrats on the world stage watching younger, richer upstarts in India, China and Brazil eclipse their fortunes. And some Americans may even become butlers at the Ambani house.

GOIH Global Capital Markets---Bank of America (BAC) Down 10% last 30 days.

BAC the large consumer focused bank is down 10% from Oct. 26 to today. BAC traded at $48.25 on Oct. 31 and today traded as low as $42.42 off about $6.00 during the market turmoil. The question is why has the volatility increased sharply in a Dow component?

Our models suggests that BAC has a large unhedged position in (CFC) and the infusion of the $2.0 billion into Countrywide (CFC) was in actuality a purchase of a stake in CFC by BAC. CFC is down about $6.00 during the same period of time referenced above. If a graph of CFC is laid over BAC the shares have a correlation of about 1 indicating the trading in CFC and BAC is linked.

So what does this mean for BAC? Our models suggest that BAC is in a tough spot: they cannot acquire another bank since they are already at the 10% limit of US deposits. Moreover, they have indicated they are shutting down the investment banking division due to the losses taken in the trading portfolio. Absent a revenue replacement for the potential revenue from investment banking, BAC cannot achieve the revenue projections to support a higher stock price.

Would BAC buy Merrill Lynch?

We don’t think BAC will purchase MER due to the fact that the CEO elect of MER is a Goldman Sachs man and GS will benefit firm MER being on the ropes due to the losses MER took on its trading desk.

Our models predict that BAC will trade lower n the near term and flat in the long term.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

GOIH Global Capital Markets--Global Asset Management Company.

We have based on our quantitative financial models formed a global asset management company for the management of internal portfolios based on our models. We are seeking listings on the AIM Exchange, the Hong Kong Exchange, and several European Exchanges where the management company will trade in the market. Our management company will raise assets denominated in dollars, euros, yen, pounds, and Hong Kong dollars, and other currencies.

We expect to have under management up to $10 billion dollars in the various portfolios.


GOIH--Global 1 Investment Holdings will be the parent company of the management company and will share the management fees estimated at 2.5% of the assets under management and 20% of the capital gains realized from trading the portfolio.


Based on our internal projections if we are able to raise the $10 billion, we expect to realize $250 million in management fees in year one.

We expect to see the equity price of GOIH increase as a result of the business model implementation.

GOIH Global Capital Markets----Resumes Posting after Finalizing New Quantitative Models.

We will begin posting again after our quant group has finalized the testing and calibration of several new robust models for the analysis of current news events for analytical information as well as the predictive value of the content.

We have several new theories concerning the price of crude oil and the dollar/euro translation rate and the price of US real estate.

We have developed a new fixed income quant model where the convexity of the 10 year T-bond relative to the euro/crude oil price correlated against the S&P 500 Financial Index is used to make political economic forecasts.

GOIH Global Capital Markets.

Monday, November 12, 2007

GOIH Quantitative Finance Group:How Morgan Stanley (MS) lost $3,700,000,000 trading Mortgage Backed Securities.

How Morgan Stanley (MS) lost $3,700,000,000 trading Mortgage Backed Securities.

Written and Sponsored by : The QFG Global Investments.

Last week MS reported they lost more than $3.7 billion in a trade gone bad, i.e., a bet on the decline of a portfolio of mortgage securities. MS is traditionally known as one the blue chip global investment banking companies, founded after the crash of 1929 by partners of the legendary J.P. Morgan.

MS usually makes a large percentage of its revenues from the advisory business and underwritings. Apparently to keep up with its rivals in the IB space MS engaged in the origination and trading of mortgage securities, based on the classical theory of finance, backed by sub-primed loans.


The trade:

The trade apparently was originated on the MBS trading desk staffed by Ph.Ds from Ivy League schools most likely. Most of these Ph.Ds have been trained in the classical theory of finance, i.e., the efficient market hypothesis, and the normal distribution. At GOIH Quantitative Finance Group, we have discarded classical financial theory, and adopted a new theory of finance based on, The Correlated Law of Large Numbers and The Behavioral Dynamics of Inefficient Market Theory. Both of these theories we originated and tested by our staff of quantitative professionals.

At MS the trading desk went short on $10 billion of MBS rated BBB with the theory that the market would continue to deteriorate and the portfolio would decline in value. Since MS was short as the portfolio declined in value they would make a profit on the trade. To execute a trade of this size MS had to find a counterparty willing to take the other side of the trade, i.e., a bet that the portfolio would not decline in value. There are only a few counterparties in the market with the credit rating and assets to execute a trade of this size, most likely a hedge fund or another investment bank whose trading desk has similar models of the MBS market.

To hedge its position MS went long on $1.0 billion of AAA rated subprimes thinking that the AAA rated bonds would hold their value even if the market turned and cause the $10 billion portfolio to decline in value. The AAA tranche was structured so the loss did not accumulate in the senior portion of the issue until a certain loss ratio was achieved.

Because MS Ph.Ds are trained in the classical theory of finance and their models were based on the normal distribution, certain assumptions were built into the trade, i.e., certain default scenarios are assumed based on a normal distribution and the standard deviation from the mean. Most likely the simulation MS ran to initiate the trade said the likelihood of the mortgage market melting down was a “5 sigma” event. That is the likelihood of the meltdown occurring was 1 in 50,000,000, this appears to be a safe bet. However, because the models are not based on actual market dynamics but on classical dynamics the models have flaws contained in their assumptions. The classical theory of finance is the equivalent of Newtonian physics which worked at speeds, i.e., velocities much less than the speed of light. However, Einstein proved there is a relativistic effect as velocities approached the speed of light, i.e., the classical theory failed to accurately predict certain scenarios. The models currently being used by the major investment banking companies are based on the classical theory of finance and failed as velocity, i.e., investor emotions and psychology, approach a threshold value, the Fear Indicator—(speed of light).

It is GOIH Global Capital Markets theory that in the modern economy where the markets are linked and communications technology enables information to propagate at the speed of light through the internet and other high speed communication networks, the investor Fear Indicator is equivalent to the speed of light in Newtonian physics and a new theory of finance-----a relativistic theory of finance----is needed to account for this new and rapid spread of investor sentiment. Stochastic investor sentiment is the “ether” of the relativistic theory of finance in the 21st century.

This new propagation of investor sentiment is not properly modeled using the normal distribution and a new probability distribution function is needed to accurately take into account several new variables of statistical behavioral finance the new relativistic theory of finance demands. We at GOIH and our Quantitative Finance Group have created the tools and the models to accurate predict market dynamics and events leading us to accurately model the performance of Etrade Finance and Country Wide Financial using our theory of Stochastic Relativistic Finance.

Negative Convexity Dynamics: Relativistic Behavioral Finance.

MS lost the $3.7 billion based on a flawed model, based on a flawed theory of finance. MS bet on the convexity of the trade based on the normal distribution. Convexity is the price-yield dynamics of a bond. For example, positive convexity indicates that for a drop in price on a bond the yield will rise. A traditional bond, i.e., CDs, treasury bonds, etc, would be a positive convexity instrument.

MS bet on MBSs which are bonds with negative convexity, i.e., their yield tends to drop as the price drops. MBS are pools of mortgages when interest rates drop homeowners tend to refinance at a lower rate paying off the high interest rate loan and replacing it with a lower rate loan. A portfolio comprised of the higher interest rate loans duration will be less and convexity being the second derivative of duration will increase as the duration decreases. Since MBSs are negative convex, as the duration decreases, convexity decreases.

GOIH Quantitative Finance Group’s models suggest that convexity is a stochastic variable consisting of a classical as well as a relativistic component. The relativistic component having the most effect on the performance of the portfolio, since refinancing is based on consumer sentiment, is the stochastic variable of interest rates comprised of behavioral components based on the Fear Indicator.

We will publish part 2 of this article later.

GOIH Capital Markets---ETFC--Now a penny stock

ETFC is now a penny stock trading below $5.00 per share. Will AMTD and EFTC place itself on restriction to prevent investors from buying the shares?

GOIH Capital Markets: ETFC Bankrupt---down sharply in trading

The shares fell in late trading Friday and weakened further before the bell, precipitated by the company

(Sponsored by: GOIH Global Capital Markets)

ETFC 4.45, -4.14, -48.2%) backing off an earnings forecast made less than a month ago because the value of its asset-backed securities portfolio dropped further.
"The continued negative news flow about charges resulting from its mortgage and CDO exposure, an SEC inquiry, and continued deterioration in its financial condition, all increase the likelihood of significant client attrition," Citi analysts said Sunday.

"Bankruptcy risk cannot be ruled out," they said. Citi also lowered its rating on E-Trade to sell.
The after-hours selling in E-Trade shares on Friday also came as the broker revealed that it's the target of an informal Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry regarding its loan and security portfolios.
E-Trade said the fair value of its $3 billion asset-backed securities, or ABS, portfolio has continued to decline since the end of the third quarter. Collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, and other securities backed by second-lien mortgages saw the biggest hits, the broker explained.

"We estimate that trying to liquidate E-Trade's loan and ABS portfolio would result in over $5 billion of losses, more than wiping out tangible equity," Citi analysts said.

E-Trade had roughly $450 million in total exposure to asset-backed CDOs and second-lien securities on Sept. 30. That includes about $50 million of AAA-rated asset-backed CDOs that have been downgraded to junk status.
The drop in value will result in further write-downs in the fourth quarter, the company added. Those extra write-downs weren't expected when E-Trade updated its 2007 earnings outlook on Oct. 17.
"Investors should no longer expect these earnings levels to be achieved," the broker said in a statement.
For their part, Citi's analysts estimated that the write-downs and provisions would total about $500 million.
"Actual securities-related losses will depend on future market developments, including the potential for future downgrades by rating agencies, which are extremely difficult to predict," the company added. "Accordingly, management believes it is no longer beneficial to provide earnings expectations for the remainder of the year."

GOIH Global Capital Markets---EFTC audio report

http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/etfc click on this for an audio report on ETFC.

GOIH Capital Markets----ETFC will file Chapter 11 within 60 days or be acquired.

Our Monte Carlo simulation formulated on a financial company game theory stochastic input, sees ETFC filing for chapter 11 protection from it creditors within 60 days. However, any chapter 11 reorganization will fail because ETFC had no equity after the write down in its sub-prime loan portfolio. We see creditors getting about $0.23 on the dollar based on our models.

ETFC now trading below $4.00 on 35 million volume.

Our synthetic hedge fund position in ETFC has already profited more than $3.5 million within the last 5 days.

GOIH Capital Markets---ETFC Bankrupt---write down will wipe out equity.

GOIH Capital Markets---ETFC Bankrupt---write down will wipe out equity.

ETFC trading below $5.00 fast going to zero. No equity after the write down. Already traded 18 million shares and moving fast on the down side. Our models predicted this outcome three months ago.

Citi Investment Research analyst Prashant A. Bhatia cut his rating on the stock to "Sell" from "Hold" and lowered his price target to $7.50 from $13.
E-Trade shares fell $2.59, or 30 percent, to $6 in premarket trading Monday.
Bhatia said there's a 15 percent chance that E-Trade will declare bankruptcy and said management may be forced to sell loans and securities at significant discounts.
"The continued negative news flow about charges resulting from its mortgage and CDO exposure, an SEC inquiry, and continued deterioration in its financial condition, all increase the likelihood of significant client attrition," Bhatia wrote in a client note.
CDOs combine slices of different kind of risk and are often backed partly by subprime mortgages, or loans given to customers with poor credit history.
Bhatia said some of E-Trade's competitors have fared better and questioned E-Trade's leadership and how management is steering the company through its troubles.
"That peers have virtually entirely avoided the credit crisis, again highlights the flawed strategy and lack of credible risk management by E-Trade's senior executives and the board of directors," Bhatia wrote in a client note.
Bhatia said E-Trade may now have trouble keeping employees, noting that the company has seen an 8 percent reduction in its work force over the past two quarters.
"The incentive for employees with options to remain at the firm may now be significantly lower," Bhatia wrote.

GOIH Global Capital Markets: Etrade Financial (ETFC) Down shaprly in pre-market

GOIH Global Capital Markets: Etrade Financial (ETFC) down sharply in pre-market. Currently trading at $6.05 in the pre-market. We went short on ETFC at $9.00 for 250,000 shares last week. We are adding to the position by creating a put with our counter party G1 Structured Credit Corp. leveraged against the S&P 500 Financial Index. We are short the S&P Financial Index with and overweight against ETFC and CFC. We expect see the trade gain as the Dow drops and the dollar continues its weakness against the major currencies.

G1 will hedge the put by taking the premium on the option and going long the volatility on ETFC and CFC options.


As we have reported here in earlier posts, ETFC is the worst performing stock in the S&P 500 Financial Index. Moreover, ETFC is facing mounting pressure in the class action litigation concerning their subprime loan portfolio. It was reported in the WSJ that ETFC would take a $3.0 billion write down on the portfolio.

Market Manipulation

In addition to the sub-prime litigation, ETFC we are hearing rumors, will face a new wave of class action lawsuits concerning the trading in OTCBB stocks, i.e., front running and phantom trades assigned to their customers’ account. We are also hearing rumors that Ameritrade will also be named in the phantom stock assignment fraud of OTCBB stocks.

It rumored that both Etrade and Ameritrade when a buy order for an OTCBB stock was made by their customer, they would not go into the market and purchase the stock, but would “assign” the customer the stock virtually and keep the purchase price of the trade and take a commission on the phantom trade. This was ok until the OTCBB stock stated going up in price, which if the OTCBB stock rose too fast both Etrade and Ameritrade would have to actually go into the market and purchase the shares and actually place the shares in the customers’ accounts. They would have to buy the stock at the increased market price causing a loss in their trading portfolio.

Both Ameritrade and Etrade would then place the OTCBB stock on restrictions preventing the purchase of the shares by their customers, only allowing the sale of the stock. This would create selling pressure on the OTCBB stock causing the stock to drop in price where both Etrade and Ameritrade would come into the market and buy and “actually” place the shares in the customers’ accounts.

We have heard rumors that Ameritrade’s trading book is short more than 200 OTCBB stocks valued at more than $500,000,000 dollar in fair value.

Friday, November 9, 2007

ETFC short position entered today short 250,000 shares @ $9.00--ETFC Doomed.

We went short ETFC at $9.00 for 250,000 shares. ETFC is doomed and will file for bankruptcy. Depositors with more than $100,000 should be cautious as that is the maximum amount insured by the FDIC, anything over that amount will be lost once ETFC declared Chapter 11.

E*Trade Expects More Write-Downs

E*Trade Expects More Write-Downs
By ANDREW EDWARDS and GEOFFREY ROGOWNovember 9, 2007 5:25 p.m.


GOIH Commentary----
Bankruptcy Looming for ETFC as we reported on Thursday of this week.

E*Trade Financial Corp. late Friday said it expects to record further write-downs on its $3 billion in mortgage-backed securities holdings in the fourth quarter, as the market for the securities continues to deteriorate.
E*Trade's shares recently fell 13% in after-hours trading.
The New York discount online brokerage said its total exposure to collateralized debt obligations of asset-backed securities and second-lien securities at Sept. 30 was about $450 million, including about $50 million of "AAA" rated asset-backed collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, that were downgraded to junk status.
CDOs are instruments that bundle different kinds of risk, and some include pieces of bonds backed by mortgages given to subprime borrowers.
In addition, the company said the "deterioration observed since September 30" will likely result in write-downs that exceed previous expectations, noting investors should no longer expect these earnings levels to be achieved.
The company said it expected the declines in fair value to result in further securities write-downs in the fourth quarter, adding it will no longer provide earnings expectations for the rest of the year.
On Oct. 17, the company reported a third-quarter net loss after writing down nearly $200 million worth of mortgage-backed securities squeezed during the summer's credit crisis.
The company, one of the biggest online brokerages, at the time also lowered 2007 guidance because of "the possibility of further credit deterioration."
E*Trade uses some $40 billion of customer cash from its bank and brokerage to make investments, including in asset-backed securities and CDOs.
Separately, E*Trade disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an informal inquiry of the company's loan and securities portfolios. The company is cooperating with the SEC inquiry, which began Oct. 17, according to disclosure in the company's third-quarter report.

Wachovia Expects $1.1 Billion Write-Down

Wachovia Expects $1.1 Billion Write-Down
By MIKE BARRISNovember 9, 2007 8:56 a.m.

Wachovia Corp., which signaled increasing credit troubles ahead in its third-quarter results last month, said that it expects to take an additional $1.1 billion pretax hit as conditions continue to deteriorate in the subprime-mortgage market.

The bank will write down the value of its collateralized debt obligations by about $1.11 a share for October. It also said it will record a loan-loss provision in the fourth quarter of between $500 million to $600 million, citing the housing-market downturn.
After the third-quarter report, "certain financial markets experienced further deterioration, particularly the markets for subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and for collateralized debt obligations," Wachovia said.
In premarket trading, Wachovia shares were at $39, versus Thursday's close of $40.30.
Wachovia said its exposure to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities was $2.1 billion as of Oct. 31. The bank's exposure to asset-backed collateralized debt obligations was $676 million as of Oct. 31, compared with $1.8 billion as of Sept. 30.

The bank also said a $115 million expense connected to Visa's planned initial public offering and a legal settlement with American Express Co. will lower third-quarter reported net income by $72 million, or 4 cents a share.

Last month, the fifth-largest U.S. bank reported a 10% drop in third quarter net income as loan-loss provisions quadrupled and it took $1.3 billion in losses and write-downs. At the time, Wachovia Chairman and Chief Executive G. Kennedy Thompson said "trends in mortgage credit are deteriorating faster than we would have expected."
The earnings were the latest to show how the damage caused by subprime loans has spread throughout the industry, bruising even banks that largely stayed on the sidelines during the subprime-lending boom.

GOIH Global Capital Markets: Negative Conexity Trade

Our quantitative finance group will dissect the Morgan Stanley trade and provide a layman's view of how the trade went astray. Had the trade been properly hedged via the ABX index it is likely the loss would have been a gain. As we reported here several weeks ago, the models being used on Wall Street are flawed and contain inflection points. Those in the know, know where the inflection points are located and move the market in that direction causing large losses for those who continue to use the flawed models premised on the normal distribution and the efficient market theory.

The Ph.D's at Morgan were no doubt trained in the classical theory of modern finance which is based on a false premise, i.e., that the market price are not correlated and are independently distributed. As can be clearly seen after the latest round of losses by the large investment banks, they obviously do not know how to operate the models correctly. Tallying the losses amounts to more than $30 billion to date that have been disclosed.

$30 billion in losses by what are supposed to be the smartest people in the world, GOIH models predicted the losses in Jan. 2007 and we see continued losses as long as the Fed continues to lower interest rates.

We believe there is a major Wall St. investment bank short the dollar against all the major currencies and the Fed's move is designed to rescue the banks from the losses in the subprime portfolio, otherwise it makes no economic sense for the dollar to continue to fall and for the Fed to continue to lower interest rates.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

GOIH Global Capital Markets: Quantitative Finance at Morgan Stanley---Negative Convexity at Morgan Stanley.

Negative Convexity at Morgan Stanley
by Felix Salmon

Morgan Stanley was short subprime. Subprime went down. Morgan Stanley lost $3.7 billion on the trade. How is that possible? Morgan Stanley's CFO, Colm Kelleher, explained it thusly:
“We began with a short position in the subprime asset class, which went right through to the first quarter; as the structure of this book had big negative convexity and the markets continued to decline, our risk exposure swung from short to flat to long.”

So, what is this "negative convexity" of which Kelleher speaks?
Eric Jardine says that it means that "we started out perfectly hedged but have since gotten long as markets have deteriorated," but that's not entirely right: as Kelleher says, the bank started out short, they were then briefly perfectly hedged, and then they ended up long. I have a feeling that in fact Morgan Stanley was putting on a trade which was much more complicated than the simple long-senior short-junior play that Jardine hypothesizes.
Part of the problem is that "convexity", as a concept is not very easy to understand. It's basically about the relationship between price and yield: as a bond's price goes up, its yield goes down, and vice versa. But if you draw a graph with price on one axis and yield on the other, you don't get a straight line, you get a curve. Convexity is basically a measure of the shape of that curve.

With most bonds, there's something called positive convexity, which is great for investors. If you buy a Treasury bond at par, say, then your profit in the event of a 50bp drop in yields is greater than your loss in the event of a 50bp rise in yields. For any given move in interest rates, your upside is bigger than your downside. Nice!
But of course in the world of ultra-sophisticated financial engineering, you can create instruments which have so much negative convexity that the price might start off moving in one direction as yields start moving, and then eventually start moving in the other direction.
I have no idea what kind of trade Morgan Stanley got involved in. But essentially they went short at a point on the price-yield curve which was so very, well, curvy that their profits from falling prices soon turned into losses from falling prices.

GOIH Capital Markets: Looking to re-enter AAPL and GS on rebound.

Will re-renter AAPL @$175 and GS at $208 for 200,000 shares each.

GOIH Global Capital Markets: ETFC down again today, 52 week low.

Etrade Financial is down 6.75% again today, further adding to the swoon the stock has taken this year. The company has dropped from a 52 week high of $25 to the $8.32 today a 52 week low, with no end in sight for the losses. As we have reported here earlier, ETFC is doomed and the end is in sight. ETFC got caught up in the mortgage market crisis and the OTCBB trading litigation concerns are doing the company in. We see ETFC lowered before it goes higher.

GOIH Global Capital Markets: Markets TumbleAs Dollar's FallAdds to Anxiety

Markets TumbleAs Dollar's FallAdds to Anxiety
By JOANNA SLATER and CRAIG KARMINNovember 8, 2007; Page A1

The credit crisis sparked by mortgage problems reared its head anew, as stocks tumbled on fears about shaky financial institutions. This time, the dollar's fall to record lows and oil's flirtation with $100 a barrel added to the worrisome brew.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 360.92 points, or 2.64%, to 13300.02. The index has now wiped out all of its gains since the Federal Reserve on Sept. 18 made the first of its two recent interest-rate cuts, sparking a short-lived rally that sent the Dow to a record high Oct. 9.
Wall Street is once again nervous about how much damage remains from subprime mortgages and other bad credit, even after tens of billions of dollars in write-downs. The wave of credit-rating downgrades on mortgage securities continued yesterday, and bank shares were especially hard-hit. Shares of Washington Mutual Inc., a major lender, lost 17%, and after the market closed American International Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley reported new write-downs connected to housing problems. (See related article.1)
Something else is beginning to nag at investors. The dollar and oil are pushing to opposite extremes, one to record lows and the other near record highs. Gold, an age-old refuge in times of financial turmoil, is once again above $800 an ounce. The combination of economic worries and market movements is reminiscent of the chaotic 1970s, when the U.S. was beset by inflation, recession and a stock market going nowhere.
The global economy is much different today than it was then. Inflation is generally under control, and most investors trust central banks to keep it that way. The U.S. economy, though slowing, has kept growing even as higher energy prices hit consumers.
Still, the parallel points to some challenges that policy makers are trying hard to manage. One is the threat of inflation. Another is the risk of a broad international loss of confidence in America and its currency, which has long been the place where countries with big foreign reserves put the bulk of their assets.

"This is a critical juncture," said Jim O'Neill, head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs. "The dollar is behaving in the past couple of days as though the market is testing its reserve-currency status."
On Wednesday, the dollar took a sharp turn lower against several major currencies, sliding to a new record low against the euro and hitting its lowest level in decades versus the Canadian dollar. One dollar now buys only about 93 Canadian cents. At one point in 2000, the euro was worth only 85 cents. Now one euro buys $1.46.
One spark behind the dollar's latest downturn was a comment by a Chinese lawmaker suggesting that the country should buy more euros. Although the lawmaker isn't responsible for financial policy and later amended the remark, the comment fueled pessimism about the dollar's prospects amid slowing U.S. economic growth.

The price of oil, meanwhile, is pushing toward $100 a barrel, a price that just a few years ago most economists agreed could fuel a nasty recession. Strong demand from developing countries, constrained supplies around the world and speculative pressure are joining to push it higher. And gold closed yesterday at $831 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange, its highest level since 1980, as investors sought its perceived protection against inflation.
The combination of movements in the dollar, oil and gold was similar in the 1970s. Back then, the dollar became unhinged after President Nixon abandoned the gold standard and the global system for regulating exchange rates collapsed with it. That was one factor behind oil's rise during that decade. Because oil is traded in dollars, exporters were earning less in other currencies for every barrel, and had a big incentive to restrict supply to drive up prices.
The world is far different today. The 1970s were wracked by recession and double-digit inflation. Today, strong global growth is a major force pushing the price of oil and the dollar in opposite directions. Central banks are acutely aware of the danger posed by inflation, and declare their readiness to move quickly to combat it. U.S. consumer prices in October were up 2.8% from a year earlier.

"Economies are much more resilient and much less prone to a creeping inflation process," says Eric Chaney, an economist at Morgan Stanley in London.
Fears of a falling currency were likely a factor when the Fed signaled last week, at the time of its latest interest-rate cut, a reluctance to cut rates again. The dollar's decline "could lead to higher prices for imported goods," Fed governor Kevin Warsh said yesterday. "If these same forces cause inflation expectations to become less reliably anchored, then inflation could increase in the longer run as well."
So far, the dollar's decline has benefited U.S. exporters by making their goods cheaper abroad and boosting the value in dollars of money earned overseas. That has helped lift the share prices of many multinationals. Taken too far, however, a dollar slide could hurt stocks broadly, if investors become unwilling to hold U.S. dollar assets.
"If you get a dollar rout and people start dumping quickly, that will complicate monetary policy and undermine the Goldilocks scenario that investors are hanging on to," said Russ Koesterich, head of investment strategy at Barclays Global Investors.

George Magnus, a senior economic adviser at UBS AG, notes some echoes of the past in the way some international investors are treating the dollar. Back in the 1970s, Germany and Japan, which had supported the dollar, tried to demand gold in exchange for their burgeoning reserves.
Today it's oil-producing countries and emerging economies like China that find themselves sitting on mountains of dollar reserves that are losing value. Some are looking to diversify their reserves, for instance by creating sovereign wealth funds that turn those dollars into other real assets. China has purchased a stake in Blackstone Group, the private-equity firm. "Some of the storylines are the same but the characters are obviously different," says Mr. Magnus.
As before, a sliding dollar gives oil exporters an incentive to keep prices high to avoid eroding their own purchasing power, although the major causes of high oil prices are soaring demand and constrained supply as key producer nations are unable to raise output.
The dollar's swoon means that consumers in different parts of the world don't feel the same pain. Since the start of 2003, oil prices in dollars have tripled, but in euro terms, they have a little more than doubled.

Some economists fret about a vicious cycle in which Persian Gulf countries put more of their oil earnings into the euro and other currencies, which drives down the dollar and leads the oil producers to keep a tighter leash on production. That drives up oil prices and brings in even more money for the countries to convert into nondollar currencies.
Some analysts say oil markets have attracted investors specifically looking for a hedge against the rapidly falling dollar. "The perception is that you want to own whatever benefits from the dollar weakening. And commodities are an ideal play on that," says Ben Dell, an energy analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
John Taylor, head of FX Concepts, a New York-based hedge fund that specializes in currency trading, was a foreign-exchange analyst in 1970s. Then, he says, the U.S. was also struggling with budget deficits due to war spending and with a spike in commodity prices. One advantage the dollar enjoyed in the 1970s was that the U.S. still saved more than it spent. Now the country depends on foreign money to finance its debt, which could keep the dollar under pressure.
But Mr. Taylor is also more optimistic about the ability of leading governments to coordinate action to stop the dollar's slide if needed. The Group of Seven developed nations, which had its first meetings in the 1970s, has built three decades of experience responding to currency gyrations

GOIH Positions exited in Apple and Goldman Sachs

Earlier today we exited our positions in AAPL and GS. AAPL exited at $182 and GS exited at $218. The financials are taking the market down with increased volatility. A 200 point swing in the Dow is common and the VIX index is rapidly rising. We are preparing a report on where we see the market moving in the short term.

GOIH Global Capital Markets:Citibank's Rapidly Deteriorating Situation

Citibank's Rapidly Deteriorating Situation
by Markham Lee

The hits just keep on coming for Citibank (C): first there was the $6.8 billion in Q3 write downs and losses, then the alleged “resignation” of their CEO and Monday’s announcement of $11 billion in additional write downs. If that wasn’t enough, there came Tuesday’s news that Citi has provided its SIVs with a $10 billion credit line due to funding issues and Wednesday’s news of a possible downgrade from Moody’s.
From Reuters:
Citigroup Inc which faces rising losses from the global credit crisis, said it provided $7.6 billion of financing to off-balance sheet investment funds that have had trouble funding themselves recently.
Citigroup said it has given the funds, known as structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, $10 billion of available financing, and the funds had drawn $7.6 billion of that financing as of Oct. 31.
The move, disclosed in a quarterly filing with regulators late on Monday, may add to investor concern about Citi's $83 billion of structured investment vehicles, which issue short- and medium-term debt to finance their acquisition of bank bonds, repackaged debt, and other securities...

…Citi said in its filing that its credit lines to the SIVs were done on "arms-length commercial terms," and that the bank has no plans to list the SIVs' assets on its own balance sheet…
…Citi has faced a series of problems in recent weeks. Over the weekend, its chief executive resigned and Citigroup revealed it may face $11 billion more in pre-tax write-downs this quarter for repackaged debt known as collateralized debt obligations…
..Those potential write-downs are on top of $6.8 billion of write-offs and losses already recorded in the third quarter.
The funding problems are likely to get worse if Moody’s does indeed cut the ratings on some of Citibank’s SIVs:
From Bloomberg:
Citigroup Inc. and HSBC Holdings Plc received warning of possible downgrades to their structured investment vehicles as Moody's Investors Service reviewed its ratings on $33 billion of debt.
SIV "debt ratings continue to be vulnerable to the unprecedented large and sustained declines in portfolio value combined with a prolonged inability to refinance maturing debt,'' Moody's said in a statement today...

... Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said this week it provided $7.6 billion of financing to the SIVs it runs after they were unable to repay maturing debt. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is pushing for Wall Street to establish a fund by year-end to help SIVs avoid a fire sale of assets because of the contagion from record mortgage foreclosures.
Citigroup's Beta Finance Corp., Centauri Corp. and Dorada Corp., with combined assets of more than $50 billion, risk downgrades to their capital notes, debt that ranks below commercial paper. Moody's may also cut London-based HSBC's Cullinan Finance Ltd. capital notes.
So after reading the two articles, the following things immediately came to mind:
1) The combination of the $10s (if not hundreds of billions), the words “off balance sheet” and “no equity exposure”, make me nervous. Citibank can pretend it isn’t exposed to its SIVs, but I know a hobgoblin when I see one, especially when Citi isn’t exactly acting like a company that doesn’t have any exposure.

2) Citibank’s SIVs or perhaps “fiscal sieves” are in trouble and the super-conduit may not be able to save them. Even though balance sheet alchemy allows Citi to legally keep the SIVs off book, if the SIVs aren’t able to pay back the credit lines the situation turns into a loss for Citi, period. Eventually, these SPEs will come back to hurt Citi.

3) Can anyone really question Citibank’s participation in the super-conduit as anything more than an effort to avert disaster for its own troubled SIVs? Let’s not forget that Citibank led the way in pushing for the plan in the first place; it’s quite likely that their SIV problem is significantly larger than anyone outside of Citi realizes.

4) If the debt downgrade does happen, don’t be surprised if Citibank extends additional credit lines to its SIVs as their funding issues are only going to get markedly worse. However, due to the current credit market turmoil it won’t be easy for Citibank to just toss $10s of billions more down the SIV drain, something has to give.
5) All of Citibank’s statements regarding its exposure to CDOs, SIVs, future profitability, etc, need to be taken with a large grain of salt and heavily scrutinized. This is the same company that predicted a return to normalcy just a few weeks ago and then turned around and announced $11 billion worth of write-downs. $11 billion worth of losses didn’t magically appear over the course of a couple of weeks.

6) Does anyone remember when we were looking at around $20 billion worth of write downs heading into Q3 earnings season and it seemed like a really big deal? In fact, many financial scribes suggested that the Banks were just getting the write downs out of their “systems” and/or that there was a lot of exaggeration in that $20B number. Well, it’s only a couple of weeks later and it looks like Citibank will have nearly $18 billion in write downs on its own and Q4 isn’t even over yet. Considering the speed at which the lending loss problem is increasing (mortgage defaults, credit card defaults, et al), is it really a stretch to say that Citi could hit the $20B mark by the end of Q4?

7) Continuing on the theme of write downs: Merrill Lynch may have to write down another $10 billion in CDOs on top of the $7.9 billion they wrote down last quarter, and Morgan Stanley announced that they may have to write down $3.7 - $6 billion in subprime CDOs. How much longer before the U.S. Banking sector crosses the $60 billion mark in total write downs? How many $10s of billions of write-downs do we need to see before we at least accept that we have some sort of crisis or the very least a rather significant malaise infecting the financial sector? We may find ourselves looking at back on a mere $20 billion in write downs as a “better place”.
8) Finally, the larger issue is that Citibank has some very significant financial problems that didn’t just suddenly appear; instead the market conditions that allowed Citibank to hide these problems are no longer present. As a result, past “strength” has to be questioned and investors need to be wary of this stock because we just don’t know how bad things truly are.
Sources:
· Reuters: “Citigroup provided $7.6 bln to struggling SIVs” – Dan Burns, November 6, 2007
· Bloomberg: “Citigroup SIVs Risk Cut in $33 Billion Moody's Review” – Neil Unmack, November 7, 2007

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

GOIH Recalibrates models after CSCO misses

We have reprogrammed our models after the miss by CSCO and exited the position on the close, taking a loss on the trade. Our models have been reprogrammed taking into account the increase in volatility and the rapidly declining dollar and increase in the price of oil. We will post the results of the simulation on Thurs.

GOIH Capital Market: ETFC headed down again.

ETFC traded down again today closing at $8.76 on 17.2 million shares. We see ETFC getting taken out or going bankruptcy from the litigation and competition.

GOIH Capital Markets: Chinese Billionaires







SHANGHAI, Nov. 6 — The United States has more billionaires than any other country: 415 by the last count of Forbes magazine.






A year ago, there were 15 billionaires in China. Now, there are more than 100, according to the widely watched Hurun Report. Forbes has documented 66.
Unlike America’s rich, China’s are hardly famous, even here. Bill Gates and Warren E. Buffett are known around the world. But Yang Huiyan and Robin Li?
Yet, who they are, and what they decide to do — or are allowed to do — with their money and newfound influence will have political and economic consequences in China and probably far beyond, analysts say.
“They could start buying companies in the U.S.,” Chang Chun, an economist at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, said. “They have so much influence.”
Thanks to the capitalist stock mania sweeping the Communist mainland, Chinese private and state-owned companies issuing stock for the first time are becoming the most valuable companies in the world — at least on paper — often overnight.
On Tuesday, Alibaba.com, one of China’s biggest Internet companies, had a blockbuster stock offering, raising nearly as much as Google and soaring 193 percent on its first day of trading.
That came after the debut on Monday of the state-owned energy company PetroChina on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Its market valuation ran up to more than $1 trillion, topping that of any company in history.
Analysts are skeptical about the way China’s stocks are valued, particularly those like PetroChina with huge amounts of untradable government shares. But on paper it has dethroned Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in the world.
Similarly, China Mobile is the world’s most valuable telecommunications company. The state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which was nearly insolvent a decade ago, is worth more than Citigroup.
And when Country Garden, a southern China real estate company, went public in April, its initial public offering was bigger than Google’s.
But many analysts argue that there is nothing underlying the skyrocketing values, or that the obscure finances of the companies make it impossible to know their true value. And if China’s stock market is a bubble, the new billionaires will disappear as quickly as they rose.
“A lot of people are surprised at how fast this has happened,” said Jing Ulrich, an analyst at JPMorgan. “But this is the power of the capital markets. A lot of people’s wealth is based on newly listed companies.”
After a nearly decade-long bear market for Chinese stocks, investors here are in party mode. The Shanghai Stock Market is up nearly 400 percent in two years. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange is shattering records.
The emergence of the superwealthy is a dramatic turnaround in a country that once branded enemies of the state “capitalist roaders.”
But in the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping broke with Maoist dogma by saying, “to get rich is glorious,” setting off a wild scramble that has produced a generation of hungry entrepreneurs.
Many analysts believe the Chinese are so new to this type of money that they themselves do not know what they will do with it, assuming it lasts.
As much as the bounty of billionaires is a source of pride, it is also a potential cause for concern in a nominally Communist country. Per capita income in China is less than $1,000 a year.
“One issue is social stability,” says Emmanuel Saez, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “In Latin America you had such a concentration that revolutionaries wanted to redistribute it.”
Perhaps for that reason, many wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs fight to stay off the rich lists. Plus, the early lists of wealthy often led to unwanted scrutiny, including investigations and jail for some on tax evasion or corruption charges.
But times have changed.
With the economy of China roaring and entrepreneurs sensing a golden age of stock riches, everyone seems to be mouthing the words “shang shi,” Chinese for initial public offering.
Among the most celebrated are the young Internet tycoons. Robin Li, the 38-year-old founder of Baidu, which is called China’s Google, is now worth about $2.4 billion, making him richer than Jerry Yang of Yahoo. Ma Huateng, 36, of Tencent, another Internet giant, is worth $1.9 billion. And Jason N. Jiang, the 34-year-old founder of Focus Media, is worth $1.1 billion.
Mr. Jiang grew up in Shanghai, and studied literature before turning his focus to business while in college. He says he started out selling advertising in Shanghai and then, in 1997, formed what is now Focus Media with the idea of placing video monitors broadcasting advertisements in elevators, apartment complexes, supermarkets, and even on street corners.
With the help of Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, Focus Media went public in 2005 on the Nasdaq — and its shares have jumped about 800 percent in two years.
But it may be ambition more than money, at least so far, that motivates him. “I want this company to be the greatest media group — the greatest media company in the world,” he said in an interview. “I want Focus Media in every part of the world.”
He says he works 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., and does not feel tired. He also says he has no time for anything else, including spending his enormous wealth. He has upgraded to a nicer home in recent years, he says, but has little time for sports or anything else. He is single and works through lunch at his desk, buying a $2.50 take-out meal nearly every day.
“I think this is typical,” he says of successful entrepreneurs in China. Experts call entrepreneurs like Mr. Jiang the country’s best hope for innovation.
“These young 30-something-year-old entrepreneurs have become billionaires, and they’ve become role models for others,” says Chen Zhiwu, a professor of finance at Yale University. “They have totally energized Chinese entrepreneurs.”
In fact, after Forbes and the Hurun Report, which tracks the wealthy, published their rich lists this fall, the government in Hunan Province, Mao’s birthplace in central China, seemed to complain that the province was not accurately represented.
The Hunan provincial government posted its own rich list on its provincial Web site, as if to say: people from Hunan are great entrepreneurs, too.
While Forbes this year estimates that there are 66 billionaires in China, Rupert Hoogewerf, publisher of The Hurun Report, has already found more than 100, and there could be many more, he says.
Mr. Hoogewerf also says that 6 of the 10 richest self-made women in the world are from China, including Zhang Yin, the founder of Nine Dragons Paper, which collects recycled paper from the United States and turns it into boxes in China.
The richest person in China, since last April, is also a woman: Yang Huiyan of Country Garden, the real estate company.
Ms. Yang, 26, who did not grant an interview, is No. 1 on both rich lists, and easily the richest woman in Asia. A graduate of Ohio State University, she is worth about $16 billion, making her richer than George Soros, Rupert Murdoch and Steven P. Jobs.
Her father, a real estate developer in southern China, gave her most of the family’s fortune in stock, just before Country Garden’s blockbuster Hong Kong initial public offering.
In keeping with their reputation for discretion, of about 15 billionaires contacted recently, only one, Mr. Jiang, agreed to an interview. They tend to hide their billions, friends say, sometimes with offshore purchases. Some even boast that they still get a $2 haircut.
Their stories, though, are remarkable. Huang Guangyu, 38, grew up in a poor village in southern China, where he and his brother sold plastic bottles and newspapers. Now, he controls Gome, one of the country’s most popular electronics stores.
Li Ning won three gymnastics gold medals at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Later, he founded a sporting goods company, took it public and signed Shaquille O’Neal to a sneaker contract. Now, Mr. Li is richer than Tiger Woods.
The rise of the Chinese billionaire is remarkable not just because of the speed with which it has happened — the country only opened up to capitalism 25 years ago — but because it happened without the help of a single global brand, no Sony or Toyota. (Japan has only 24 billionaires.)
Indeed, China’s wealthiest, largely real estate tycoons (35) and manufacturers, appear singularly focused on making it inside China, not outside.
That is the next challenge of the billionaires. And some are already embracing it.
Shi Zhengrong studied physics and solar energy in Australia before returning to China in 2001 to start up Suntech Power. Six years later, Mr. Shi’s solar energy company is valued at $9 billion, its stock price up over 300 percent since the public stock offering in December 2005.
In an interview earlier this year at his Shanghai headquarters, Mr. Shi insisted that solar power will play a role in China’s development. And as he finished the meeting, he smiled and said, “Some day, this company will be as big as Microsoft.”

GOIH Investment Banking News: Storm May Hit Morgan StanleyAfter Its Calm

Storm May Hit Morgan StanleyAfter Its Calm
Write-Downs ProjectedBy Two Analysts;More Firms Face Risks
By RANDALL SMITHNovember 7, 2007; Page C1

Of all the blue-chip Wall Street securities firms, Morgan Stanley seemed one of the least likely to get thumped by the subprime- mortgage crisis.
The firm is a bit player in underwriting the securities known as collateralized-debt obligations that have rocked Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and others, ranking a distant No. 10.
So why are some on Wall Street starting to sweat about Morgan Stanley's exposure to this business?

Two analysts are projecting the firm may take a fourth-quarter write-down of $3 billion to $6 billion. The estimates by analysts David Trone of Fox-Pitt, Kelton and Mike Mayo of Deutsche Bank AG contributed to Morgan Stanley stock's falling $1.08, or 1.94%, yesterday in New York Stock Exchange trading to $54.51 a share. Mr. Trone projected the possible write-downs at $4 billion to $6 billion, Mr. Mayo $3 billion to $4 billion.
While the firm may not have underwritten as many CDOs, which are securities backed by pools of assets such as mortgages, Morgan Stanley may have been involved in transactions with other firms that left it with exposure to CDO risks, market participants say.
Such proprietary trading with the firm's own money already cost the firm $480 million on money-losing quantitative stock trading in the third quarter, with $390 million in losses occurring on a single day in August, according to regulatory filings.
Asked by a CNBC reporter Monday about possible fourth-quarter write-downs, Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack indicated he expected numerous firms would report such hits because market prices have declined. But he wouldn't address specifics about Morgan Stanley.

The analysts' estimates are still far less than those disclosed and projected for the top two CDO underwriters, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, both of whose chief executives lost their jobs over such losses in the past week. The situation at Morgan Stanley isn't considered as dire.
But the estimates indicate the pain from such losses may be spreading to other Wall Street firms, which in mid-December will report their results for the fourth quarter ending this month. "Anything that touches CDOs is showing more pain than we thought," Mr. Mayo said.
"At first the market assumed mortgage was affecting only a few poor risk managers, and now they're realizing it's going to affect almost every large investment bank," Mr. Trone said in an interview.

Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs Group all gave their last earnings report in mid-September based on the quarters that ended in August. Both Citigroup and Merrill reported for periods including September, when the debt market downturn worsened, as it has in October as well.
Investors appear increasingly nervous about Morgan Stanley. This week, its stock has been weaker than any of its major rivals', falling 7.5% as Goldman declined 2.8%, Merrill fell 1.6%, Lehman dropped 1.2%, and Bear fell 0.2%.

Merrill two weeks ago announced an $8.4 billion write-down for its third quarter, ended in September, and analysts estimate it may take another $4 billion or more in hits for the fourth quarter. Citigroup Monday said it faced mortgage write-downs of $8 billion to $11 billion in the fourth quarter after $3.5 billion of third-quarter hits.
For its third quarter ended in August, Morgan Stanley reported $940 million in write-downs for buyout-financing commitments, $480 million in quantitative stock-trading losses and a $1 billion drop-off in bond revenue reflecting losses in mortgage-related securities.
The firm remains a leader in the most lucrative investment-banking categories, such as stock underwriting and merger advice, commodities and debt trading, and prime brokerage catering to hedge funds, Mr. Mayo said. Even the quantitative stock trading that stumbled in August generated more than $3 billion in profits over the past decade.

Mr. Trone characterized the basis for his Morgan Stanley estimate as "educated guesses" tied to the firm's disclosed levels of credit and real-estate exposure. He estimated the firm's exposure to CDOs is about $16 billion and that the write-downs are likely to total 25% of its CDO exposures, or $4 billion. He said the firm could take an additional $2 billion hit on straight mortgages and other risks such as exposure to SIVs, or structured investment vehicles.
Another research firm, CreditSights, yesterday estimated potential fourth-quarter CDO hits at $9.4 billion for Merrill, $5.1 billion for Goldman, $3.9 billion for Lehman, $3.8 billion for Morgan Stanley and $3.2 billion for Bear Stearns.

GOIH Capital Markets: Market Overview.

We have reprogrammed our quantitative models and they show a large drop at the opening of trading today. Oil has spiked above $97 per barrel and gold is making new 25 year highs. The dollar is taking it on the chip against the euro trading at a new low.
The Fed’s hands are tied since they just lowered interest rates last week and the market did not respond to its fix. If the Fed continued to cut rates further, the dollar will weaken and inflation will erode any exporting gains.

To the consumer, prices are continuing to rise, i.e., gas, food, basic consumer staples. Inflation for the core consumer stables is running well ahead of the government’s 2-3% estimate.


We see technology continuing to head the sector rotation out of financials and into commodities.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

GOIH Capital Markets: CSCO to report strong earning---Long @ $33.50 for 250,000 shares.

Our models indicate that CSCO will report strong earnings due to the weak dollar and the secular shift to technology out of financial services. CSCO has a dominate market share position in the networking space and market share should increase. As long as the dollar is weak CSCO will continue to export more goods.

GOIH Capital Markets: ETFC headed straight down

Etrade Financial (ETFC) traded below $9.00 today on vol of 9.235 million shares. Since we started covering ETFC the stock is the worst performing company in the S&P 500 Financial Company index. Moreover, ETFC is fighting several class actions lawsuits. We are hearing rumors that other class actions are about to be filed concerning ETFC OTCBB stock trading. We will stand by and see if the rumors are true. In any event ETFC is looking bad and the future is not bright. No merger partner is on the horizon and as a stand alone, there is no future in trading.

GOIH Capital Markets: Google advancing to our target price of $770.

GOOG is trading at $735 today up on announcement of entry into the mobile phone technology space. We earlier posted a target price of $770 and GOOG is less than 5% from our target price.


We have several other opportunities we will post here this week after our models are reprogrammed to take into account the weakening dollar and the increase in the price of oil and gold.

Monday, November 5, 2007

GOIH Global Capital Markets: First Trillion Dollar Company

HONG KONG, Nov. 5 — Superheated markets in China drove the value of PetroChina, the state oil and gas company, above $1 trillion today, giving it the highest market capitalization in corporate history and underscoring worries about a fast-growing stock bubble on the mainland.
On PetroChina’s first day of trading on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, it surpassed the combined capitalization of ExxonMobil and General Electric, the world’s next two most valuable companies.

PetroChina shares, which had been priced at 16.70 yuan, or $2.24, almost tripled in price in their debut on the Shanghai exchange. Shares reached a high of 48.62 yuan before closing at 43.96 yuan.

But while the stock surged on its debut in Shanghai, in Hong Kong, where the stock has been trading since 2000, it fell to less than half its value on the mainland. PetroChina’s Hong Kong-listed H shares dropped 8.1 percent, to 18 Hong Kong dollars, or $2.32. At closing prices today, PetroChina traded at 57 times earnings in Shanghai and 22 times earnings in Hong Kong.

GOIH Capital Markets: Citigroup's CEO out.

Our models predicted that Citigroup's ceo would be dismissed in the wake of the large write off last week. First Merrill Lynch then, Citigroup, and we predict that Bear Sterns will be the next.

Our indicators predict the market to open lower on the bleak financial sector news. Our models show a continued weakness in the market due to the overhang of the residuals in the subprime mortgage market.

Friday, November 2, 2007

GOIH Capital Markets: BAC down sharply

Bank of America (BAC) is down sharply after the open. BAC is down trading at $44.32 from opening at $46.00. After BAC reported the loss from the investment banking division the stock has traded down consistently.

Moreover, because BAC has jettisoned the IB profits and is at the Fed mandated limit for deposits of 10%, BAC cannot grow organically and revenue will suffer with the loss of the investment banking revenue. We do not see BAC recovering in the short unless they bite the bullet and acquire a major profit center to increase their earnings.

Etrade Financial (ETFC) has dropped below $ 10.00....our models predict the end is nearing for ETFC now the stock price has dropped below $10.00.

Citigroup (c) is down again today after the worry concerning its balance sheet and capital reserves.

The jobs numbers was released today and the consensus is that the numbers are not accurate and manipulated to create a psychological cushion for investor sentiment to avoid panic in the market.

We will report back later today.

GOIH Capital Markets: Investment Banking News

Goldman Sachs insiders net $16 million amid share surge
2 November 2007
Ian Allison, London


Two of Goldman Sachs' most senior insiders have between them sold $16.3 million taking advantage of the bank’s surging share price.
David Viniar executive vice president and chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs Group, sold 20,000 shares of common stock in the bank, raising $4.7 million, or an average of $234.60 a share. He continues to hold 809,151 shares directly.
Also taking advantage of Goldman’s surging share value, Gregory Palm, executive vice president and general counsel, sold 50,000 shares for $11.6 million, or an average of $227.61 a share. He continues to own 812,938 directly, with another 196,313 shares held indirectly through trusts and a limited liability company.
Goldman, the biggest and most profitable of the big investment banks, booked $4.9 billion of fixed-income profit in its most recently completed quarter, while its rivals were pummelled by illiquid credit markets and

Thursday, November 1, 2007

GOIH Capital Markets: Market Overview

The market closed down by 371 points on the Dow a day after the Fed cut interest rates. As we have reported here before, the Fed's actions are muted n the sense that the global economic system is integrated and there are alternatives for borrowers to access capital from other than a regulated financial institution.

The cut in the interest rates our models predicted, will have very little if any effect on economic activity. Exactly what can a 0.5% decrease in interest rates create in the market.


The Dow stocks traded down from the open which are multi-national companies which realize a large portion of their income from oversees sales where the theory is the interest rate cuts will drive the dollar down making exports cheaper, but for how long?

GOIH Capital Markets: Dow down 300+

Stocks Stay Mired in the Red
By ANNELENA LOBBNovember 1, 2007 2:40 p.m.


Stocks posted deep losses Thursday afternoon, more than erasing a Fed-fueled rally the day before, hurt by a raft of bad news, including fresh credit-market jitters, a Citigroup downgrade and Exxon Mobil's below-forecast earnings.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was recently down 216.15, or 1.6%, to 13713.86. The S&P 500 fell 23.74, or 1.5%, to 1525.65, and the Nasdaq fell 36.54, or 1.3%, to 2822.58. About 20 minutes after the opening bell, trading curbs were put in effect at the New York Stock Exchange.
The declines vaporized gains from a rally Wednesday afternoon, after Federal Reserve policy makers1 delivered a quarter-point rate cut. What changed overnight? Perhaps traders had time to mull the negative implications of the Fed trimming rates, a sign that central bankers are worried the third quarter's strong economic growth will fade. Investors may also have responded belatedly to the Fed's policy statement, which seemed to close the door on future rate cuts.
MARKETS ON THE MOVE
2
Track indexes and hot stocks3, with roll over charting and headlines. Plus, comprehensive coverage of bonds, commodities and forex. Markets Data Center highlights:Most Actives4, Gainers5, Losers6New Highs and Lows7, Money Flows8Intraday Futures9 and Currencies10MARKET WRAP

European Shares Close Higher11
Asian Stocks End Mixed12
Stocks Advance on Fed Rate Cut13
"I'm not sure the market wasn't caught up in the oversimplified premise that you're supposed to buy into the equity market when the Fed cuts rates," said Matthew Johnson, head of U.S. stock trading at Lehman Brothers. Now, "[there's] nervousness that there's another shoe to drop in the financial sector."
The central bank also injected $41 billion in liquidity into the financial system Thursday. Done in three operations, it amounted to the largest insertion of funds since the liquidity crisis took hold this summer. But economist Drew Matus, at Lehman Brothers, said the size and timing were "completely meaningless. The Fed is doing what's needed to keep the effective [rate] close to 4.5%."
Still, uncomfortable reminders of risks to the financial sector abounded. CIBC World Markets analyst Meredith Whitney downgraded Citigroup to "sector underperformer," saying the giant bank needed to raise more than $30 billion in capital through asset sales, a dividend cut, another stock float, or a "combination thereof." Citigroup shares fell 6.7%.
Like many other major banks, Citi's profits have been slammed by huge writedowns of mortgage-backed credit instruments on its balance sheet, after this summer's credit crunch reduced the value of many such assets or made them impossible to trade. After stabilizing recently, a key measure of such derivatives -- the ABX index tracking AAA mortgage bonds -- has fallen to fresh lows, the Financial Times reported this morning, potentially adding to lingering worries about the health of the credit market.
"These strange instruments don't trade regularly, and maybe they didn't write off enough," said Alfred Kugel, chief investment strategist of Atlantic Trust. "Merrill Lynch made an estimate two weeks ago and found out it wasn't really enough. This is such a complicated situation that it's very

Is There Room at the Top for Black Executives?











November 1, 2007
Is There Room at the Top for Black Executives?
By RON STODGHILL









The executives are a study in contrasts. One is a brash risk-taker who bootstrapped his way from an Alabama cotton farm to one of Wall Street’s largest brokerage firms. The other made his mark as a consensus builder who leveraged ties to one of America’s most powerful families to eventually lead the world’s largest media company.
E. Stanley O’Neal, 56, at Merrill Lynch and Richard D. Parsons, 59, at Time Warner, have nevertheless inhabited the public imagination as two executives who helped rewrite history by breaking down cultural barriers and rising to lead Fortune 500 companies.
But Mr. O’Neal retired under pressure this week after an unauthorized merger approach to a rival bank and an $8.4 billion write-down that resulted in an overall loss of $2.3 billion for the quarter. Mr. Parsons' contract with Time Warner expires in May and he has been under pressure to turn the reins over to Time Warner’s president, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, whom analysts say is likely to accelerate a shake-up by spinning off business units like AOL and Time Warner Cable.
Along with ruminations on their legacies, their situations have led to a debate over whether their accomplishments have helped break down barriers facing a younger generation of black executives angling for the corner office. Industry observers and civil rights leaders say Mr. O’Neal’s ouster has shed much-needed light on the dearth of African-Americans in so-called C-level positions in corporations, while underscoring the extent to which executive suites and boardrooms remain white male bastions.
The subject of race has proven to be delicate for African-American executives, many of whom prefer to view themselves as — at least publicly — an “an executive who happens to be black.” They have earned the right through hard work, they say, to be judged on their merits.
“We have demonstrated that we can not only run companies and in many cases, run them quite well,” says Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, a nonprofit civil rights organization. “There is an abundance of African-American talent out there. My hope is that they will get their chance to rise up and pick up the mantle.”
The chief executive of StarCom, Renatta McCann, said, “The victories of leaders like Stanley O’Neal and Richard Parsons are both symbolic and transformational.”
That said, she added. “we have yet to reach a tipping point where the pipeline organically regenerates. We have to achieve momentum and velocity, and it has to achieve scale to make it sustainable.”
To be sure, African-American chief executives preside over several large companies, including American Express (Kenneth I. Chenault), Aetna (Ronald A. Williams), Darden Restaurants (Clarence Otis Jr.), Sears (Aylwin B. Lewis) and Symantec (John W. Thompson). Several African-Americans also run or hold senior roles in major subsidiaries of Fortune 500 companies like General Electric (Lloyd G. Trotter), McDonald’s (Don Thompson), the Boeing Company (James A. Bell) and Xerox (Ursula Burns).
While some critics this week raised questions of race in Mr. O’Neal’s ouster, analysts and those with knowledge of Merrill’s actions, say that was not the case.
Mr. O’Neal was judged, they said, by the same standards of others in his position — the company’s performance and his relationship to the board.
Mr. O’Neal could not be reached for comment.
A spokesman for Merrill, Jason H. Wright, said: “During the years Stan was here, as an organization we very much embraced a meritocracy and inclusiveness that has translated into a more diverse work force that we’re proud of. The board has been very engaged in those initiatives and has no intention of changing, regardless of who is C.E.O.”
Alfred Edmond Jr., editor in chief of Black Enterprise magazine, said, “One of the biggest lessons is that being C.E.O. doesn’t make you bulletproof.”
“First we had to learn what it takes to get into that top spot,” Mr. Edmond said, “and now we’re learning what it’s like to live in it.”
As evidence, he pointed to Franklin D. Raines, who led Fannie Mae, the mortgage buyer, for six years before stepping down in December 2004 amid an accounting scandal, and Ann M. Fudge, who resigned in 2005 for personal reasons as chief executive of Young and Rubicam Advertising after the agency failed to keep several key accounts.
“Corporate performance will be the sword that you live and die by,” Mr. Edmond says.
“I know who I am when I go to bed, and who I am when I wake up,” Mr. Thompson of McDonald’s said. “I’ve never run away from a conversation when somebody asks what it’s like to be an African-American executive.”
But he added that he expects to be judged by his performance.
Beyond such visible exceptions as Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Parsons, some corporate diversity specialists say that in recent years, African-Americans have gradually lost ground to other minorities.
“When Carleton Fiorina left H. P., people said it was a rough time for women in the executive suite, but women in corporate America seem to be doing a lot better these days than African-Americans,” said Frank Dobbin, a professor of sociology at Harvard who studies corporate diversity. “Forty years after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, we’re much further behind than we should be.”
Martin Davidson, a professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business at the University of Virginia, put it another way: “An individual can rise to the top for many reasons, and their rise does not mean that a real shift in the system has occurred. It could be many years before we see another African-American C.E.O. of a major corporation.”
At Sears, Mr. Lewis said, “we are building a culture where every associate has an opportunity to excel, if they’re willing to put in the work. We judge people by what they accomplish, not by who they are, what they believe or where they came from.”
According to Management Leadership for Tomorrow, a nonprofit corporate diversity consulting firm, the pipeline of African-Americans accounted for less than 5 percent of top entry-level positions, and less than 3 percent of senior management jobs last year.
While 15 percent of college graduates are African-American and Hispanic, John Rice, president of M.L.T., said, they only represent 8 percent of M.B.A. students at the top 25 business schools, only 3 percent of senior management positions and 1.6 percent of Fortune 1000 chief executives.
The irony, Mr. Rice said, is that companies have become more aggressive in their diversity efforts. Among the catalysts have been payments in racial bias lawsuits. In 1997, Texaco settled a class-action suit for $176 million. In 2000, Coca-Cola paid $192.5 million to about 2,000 employees.
“Still, the number of blacks in those stepping-stone positions is very small,” Mr. Rice said. “The reason there is no critical mass is that most companies focus only on short-term outcomes.”
In fact, says Professor Dobbin of Harvard, some diversity programs have actually proved counterproductive. According to Professor Dobbin’s 2006 review of diversity programs data filed by companies to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, initiatives aimed at reducing bias at the top resulted in a 6 percent decline in the proportion of black women in management.
In an effort to raise the ranks of black senior-level executives, the Executive Leadership Council, a nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Va., held a seminar in April called “Strengthening the Pipeline.” The group’s membership has grown to more than 400 from less than 100 in 1989.
The director of the organization, Carl Brooks, said some African-Americans have chosen a different route.
“The way my generation was educated was that we saw only one route to success, and that was to get hired by a company and go to work in a suit and tie and carry a briefcase,” Mr. Brooks said. “But the days of corporate America having a monopoly on talent is over. African-Americans are looking at the work place in ways that are far more expansive than we did.”
According to the most recent Census Bureau estimates, the number of black-owned businesses increased 45 percent to 1.2 million from 1997 to 2002, and combined revenue rose 25 percent to nearly $89 billion.
Over the last quarter century, the 37 percent growth in self-employment among blacks has outpaced that of whites (10 percent) and Hispanics (15 percent).
But last week, Denise Kaigler, head of global corporate communications for Reebok International was scouting for an African-American executive to speak at the annual leadership day.
After more than an hour talking with three executives of the Boston Club, the region’s largest organization of senior executives and professional women, only a handful of potential candidates emerged. “It’s really sad,” Ms. Kaigler said. “We shouldn’t have to think so hard.”