wmt

Alaskan governor Sarah Palin will be the VP candidate for the Republican ticket. She is pro-drilling in Alaska but otherwise her business interests are not significant. And she has taken on the special interests in Alaska -- including Senator Ted Stevens, who wanted to build a bridge for nowhere.

I listened to her speech this afternoon, and I thought she did a very good job. She gave a simple speech which introduced herself and her family and described her union membership and her meteoric rise in Alaska politics.

It's clear that she was picked by McCain and not his advisors who might have preferred Romney for his fundraising prowess. Will she take Hillary votes from the Obama ticket?

As my colleague Doug McIntyre posted this morning, the New York Times reports that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) plans to cut 1,500 jobs -- that's 6% of its workforce and Lehman has already terminated 6,000 staffers since June 2007. While Lehman has been a big player in mortgage origination and securitization, there is also the potential for cuts in other lines -- such as investment banking and trading, according to the Times. Since the credit crunch is so enormous in scale and scope, there may simply not be enough demand for Lehman to survive in its current form.

Lehman is expected to have a rough quarter. The Times reports that it could take a "$4 billion loss for the quarter of $3.30 a share." Much of the loss is due to its mortgage- and asset-backed securities -- of which it owns "about $61 billion." And since there is no market for them, Lehman must write down their value and take a charge against earnings and capital. Meanwhile after dropping 71% in the last year, Lehman's stock market value is roughly a sixth of the size of that portfolio of dodgy securities.

Lehman has evidently leaked several options for raising capital -- to add to the $6 billion it got earlier this year. The Times reports that these include "the sale of Lehman's investment management division, which includes Neuberger Berman and could fetch $7 billion to $10 billion. Other options include the sale of about $40 billion of troubled commercial real estate, and the creation of a separate unit that would be owned by Lehman shareholders and house a substantial portion of Lehman's commercial and residential mortgage assets, freeing the investment bank to try to move forward."

The New York Times reports that General Motors (NYSE: GM) wants a $50 billion bailout due to the credit crunch. It says it can't get the money it needs to build fuel efficient cars. But during the decade, when it was minting money from SUVs and trucks sales, GM could have invested those profits in fuel efficient products. Now that those profits have evaporated, it wants taxpayers to step in.

What kind of bailout does GM want? The Times reports it seeks $50 billion in government-backed loans to retool its plants to build fuel efficient cars. GM is not alone -- Detroit's automakers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) already requested Congress to "appropriate $3.75 billion to back the $25 billion in loans authorized last year." Now they want to double that amount and are "urging Congress to act by the end of September so that the money can be available next year." No doubt the industry is in trouble. The Times reports that "total sales for [August are forecast to be] 14.4 percent lower than a year ago and that G.M.'s sales [will drop] 27.5 percent."

But the economic logic for this taxpayer-funded bailout is tenuous. GM wants the government to leave it alone when it comes to fuel efficiency and it made huge profits on gas guzzlers before the price of oil shot up from $24 a barrel to $117. Thanks to GM's lack of investment in fuel efficient vehicles, its losses are soaring. Most recently it lost $4.4 billion and its revenues plunged 33% from $29.7 billion to $19.8 billion. It wants our money to make up for its bad management. Since its current CEO, Rick Wagoner, has taken over, GM's stock price has fallen 83%. But he still has the support of GM's board.

Many observers refer to the market as a forecasting mechanism. If so, today's 213 point rise could be a signal that investors anticipate an Obama win. I don't think today's reported 3.3% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for the second quarter can explain the rise. Rather I think the market could be happy with the idea of taking a break from the failed tax cut and spend policies of the last eight years -- which have led to a record $490 billion federal deficit, a $9.8 trillion national debt, and the loss of $8 trillion in housing-related value.

Bloomberg News reports that GDP grew 3.3% thanks to a rise in exports to Europe -- still GDP growth was anticipated to hit 2.7% so today's figure -- which could be revised after the November election -- looked more favorable. Nevertheless, Bloomberg does not expect the so-called expansion to continue since the European economy is weakening and consumers burdened with falling home values -- the average home is down 16% -- and a tough job market -- will lead cut back their spending, which accounts for 70% of GDP growth. Bloomberg writes that "the number of Americans collecting unemployment benefits reached a five-year high last week."

The Washington Post reports that Hank Paulson plans to turn the back of his hand to people who hold common shares of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) in his "rescue" plan. But Paulson may bailout the holders of their preferred shares -- which currently pay a dividend yield of about 20%.

Why does Paulson prefer the preferred to the common shareholders? That's because the common shareholders are big mutual funds with lots of small shareholders who have no importance to the economy in his judgment. The preferred shareholders are regional banks whose capital he thinks would sink dangerously if he wipes out their dividend.

Below is a list from the Post of the big Fannie and Freddie preferred holders:

• Regions Financial (NYSE: RF) which has an estimated $200 million,
• M&T Bank (NYSE: MTB) with $161 million, and
• Astoria Financial Corp. (NYSE: AF) with $83 million.

BusinessWeek reports that Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) has repeated its threat not to bid on the $35 billion competition to supply an airborne refueling tanker to the Air Force. This is a competition that pits a Republican presidential candidate and his lobbyist former finance chair on the dole of a French aircraft company and its Alabama partner against the future prospects of a Democratically controlled Congress and White House that would tend to favor Boeing -- which has many workers in Washington state.

By threatening not to bid, Boeing is taking many big risks. The Air Force may decide to keep the terms of the competition the same -- bids due October 1 -- and contract wrap up before New Year's Day. If Boeing does not bid and the competition proceeds, EADS, parent of Airbus, and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) -- with many of its workers in the Republican-leaning Alabama -- would win the bid uncontested. If the Air Force extends the process another four months -- which Boeing would prefer -- there is a chance that the Air Force would still end up choosing the French company.

But Boeing is gambling that the odds of a more favorable outcome are greater if it threatens not to bid. Boeing thinks that Congress will not want only one bid for the Tanker and that Congress and the White House are likely to be controlled by the Democratic party in January. With the French lobbyist-backed candidate in the Senate minority, Boeing will be in a better position to shape the Tanker competition in a way that favors its victory.

The New York Times reports that since we've had such a catastrophic run with home mortgages, it's time to watch the collapse of commercial ones. The same names surface when it comes to the collapse of our financial system -- in the case of commercial mortgages Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB) ($25.1 billion), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) ($22.1 billion), Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) ($40 billion in commercial mortgages and property), and Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) ($19.1 billion) are among the biggest holders. They are also big names in Auction Rate Securities (ARS).

Why do people think that commercial real estate could be tanking? Here are four reasons:

• Declining property prices. The Times reports that the Moody's/REAL Commercial Property Price Index has dropped 12% since its peak last October.
• Commercial mortgage write-downs. According to the Times, Morgan Stanley reported commercial mortgage write-downs of $400 million and Wachovia (NYSE: WB) said it would take at least $1 billion worth of such write-downs.
• Potential Riverton default. The Times reports that Riverton, a 1,230 unit Harlem development, was premised on the idea that developers could convert "lower-priced rentals to apartments priced closer to the higher market average." But the Times reports that Monday Fitch "issued a negative watch on part of the Riverton Apartments trust" since the developers had not made much progress -- threatening commercial mortgages that Citi and Deutsche Bank hold.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) stock is up over 10% as of 9:44 a.m. on reports that Korea Development Bank (KDB) is "open to" acquiring Lehman, according to Bloomberg News. Can you say short-covering?

Bloomberg reports that KDB said, "We are studying a number of options and are open to all possibilities, which could include (buying) Lehman." But this statement requires some context. Bloomberg reports that The Financial Times wrote yesterday that "Lehman failed to sell a 50 percent stake to [KDB] and China's Citic Securities Co. The buyers walked away after deciding Lehman demanded too high a price."

Meanwhile, this announcement must be scaring those who bet that Lehman would not be able to pay its bondholders. "Credit-default swaps protecting against a default on Lehman's bonds dropped 74 basis points today to 315," according to Bloomberg. Who knows where this latest chapter in the Lehman saga will lead?

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.

It's not clear how big the bailout of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) will be but it is becoming clearer who it is for. Yesterday, I appeared on CNBC's Power Lunch to discuss the winners and losers from the collapse in their common and preferred equity. But today, Bloomberg News reports that one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout will be the government of China.

In addition to buying most of our consumer goods from China, our government could use as much as $800 billion of our tax dollars to assure that China and other holders of Fannie and Freddie assets don't suffer any losses. Bloomberg interviews Yu Yongding, a former adviser to China's central bank who said, "If the U.S. government allows Fannie and Freddie to fail and international investors are not compensated adequately, the consequences will be catastrophic. If it is not the end of the world, it is the end of the current international financial system."

That sounds like a pretty strong statement to me. I am not sure why Yu made it or what it means. So I will throw in a mixture of fact and fiction to offer my interpretation. Bloomberg reports that China holds $376 billion worth of "long-term U.S. agency debt [which] is mostly in Fannie and Freddie assets." CLSA estimates that the six biggest Chinese banks hold $30 billion worth of such paper, according to Bloomberg. Those are the facts, now comes the fiction part.

Now eight large brokerage firms have settled with Auction Rate Securities (ARS) investors. This afternoon Bloomberg News reports Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Deutsche Bank settled with state regulators. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) announced another prong of its settlement earlier in the day.

What are the terms of the settlement for the latest two? Bloomberg writes that "Goldman will buy back $1.5 billion of the securities and pay a $22.5 million fine. Deutsche Bank will redeem $1 billion of debt and was fined $15 million." In addition to the rogues gallery of big ARS issuers who have yet to settle, investigators are targeting medium-sized brokers -- Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW), Fidelity Investments and E*Trade Financial Corp. (NYSE: ETFC).

This leaves major ARS issuers lagging behind their peers. Here are three holdouts (with their 2007 municipal ARS issuance in parentheses):

• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) ($3.7 B)
• RBC Capital Markets ($1.2 B)
• Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) ($1.1 B)

What are they waiting for?

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.

Bloomberg News reports that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) has extended its Auction Rate Securities (ARS) redemption offer in response to what I thought was pressure from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who threatened to take Merrill to court. But what is interesting is that Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was the one who announced the settlement.

While the politics of this intrigue me, those who held Merrill ARSs (pun intended) care about the terms of the settlement. Bloomberg reports that Merrill "will begin the buyback on October 15 for individuals, nonprofits and small business with $3 million or less on deposit. Redemptions for clients with $100 million or less start on January 15." This Merrill deal adds to the one it announced on August 7 -- a voluntary buyback of $10 billion worth of ARS. Merrill has a total of "30,000 clients who held an estimated $12 billion" according to Bloomberg.

This leaves many major ARS issuers lagging behind their peers. Here are four holdouts (with their 2007 municipal ARS issuance in parentheses):

• Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) ($4.3 B)
• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) ($3.7 B)
• RBC Capital Markets ($1.2 B)
• Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) ($1.1 B)

What are they waiting for?

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.

I am not sure that Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) will make it through the month as public companies. Barron's quoted an anonymous senior official -- who sounds an awful lot like Hank Paulson to me -- that unless Fannie and Freddie could raise at least $10 billion each, the government would bail them out while wiping out common shareholders and eliminating the preferred dividend. Since then, investors have been dumping shares of Fannie and Freddie like there's no tomorrow.

Who wins and who loses if Fannie and Freddie's shareholders are wiped out? As I said on CNBC's Power Lunch this afternoon, the winners are investors who shorted Fannie and Freddie years ago and are now reaping enormous profits. I also think that some Wall Street investment banks will win big as they get the job of selling off Fannie and Freddie's pieces. The losers are their biggest common and preferred shareholders -- including some well known mutual funds.

The winners are:

• Jim Rogers, Rogers Holdings - Rogers originally shorted Freddie and Fannie in March 2006 and appeared on Bloomberg on November 20, 2007 to discuss why he did it and where he thought their stocks would go.
• Doug Noland, Prudent Bear - As I posted, since the late 1990s, Noland's research has concluded that Freddie and Fannie would "shudder" when the US credit bubble eventually burst. Noland has profited from the short bets he made -- but he says it is emotionally painful to watch them fail.

Upset about paying $3.80 a gallon for gasoline? Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) CEO, argued that it was all supply and demand so quit your bellyaching. I thought speculation was playing a big part -- traders who bought oil and sold the dollar to drive up the price. Indeed, a few months agao I found a source who thinks 60% of the volume was from speculators.

Seems even that was too low an estimate. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has analyzed the books of oil traders and calculated that 81% of oil trading volume was conducted by speculators.

Guess who broke open the opportunity for oil speculators to trade oil in a loosely regulated fashion? Goldman. The Post reports that In 1991, its J. Aron unit argued that "it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms."

It should come as no surprise that banking is a cyclical business. After the bubble bursts, there is always lots of hand wringing and vows to be more rigorous in underwriting. Then the bubble refills and people start to worry more about losing market share to companies with less disciplined underwriting approaches. This leads to a free-for-all as everybody scrambles for market share by lowering their credit standards. The bad loans don't get paid back and the cycle starts anew.

In the past, the Fed has been able to recapitalize banks during the down times by cutting interest rates. Since banks were tightening their credit terms, the interest rates on loans remained high or got even higher. But with the lower interest rates, the amount that banks paid depositors immediately dropped. As a result, the spread between loan and deposit rates widened and the resulting net interest revenue helped to replenish banks' capital.

That is sort of happening now. Since the Fed cut rates from 5.25% to 2%, banks' net interest margins have widened. A look at Citigroup Inc.'s (NYSE: C) most recent quarterly statement reveals that between Q2 2007 and Q2 2008 its net interest margin climbed from 2.41% to 3.18%. During that same time, the average amount Citi charged for loans declined slightly from 6.41% to 6.21% but the rates it paid depositors fell much more -- from 4.42% to 3.30%. Unfortunately, I said it's sort of happening now because the wider spread is not generating enough additional capital to offset Citi's writedowns.

Henry Paulson is maneuvering himself into the history books by forcing Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) into a spiral of doom from which they can't recover. He had plenty of help from the directors and executives who sit atop them. But it's becoming clear that since Saturday's Barron's article, laying out the path to failure, events are spiraling out of Fannie and Freddie's control.

The anonymous senior government source in the Barron's article said that unless Fannie and Freddie could raise at least $10 billion each, the government would bail them out while wiping out common shareholders and eliminating the preferred dividend. This would lead to a sell off of bad loans, a split into smaller pieces, and maybe selling those pieces back to the public. All these activities are a government gift to Wall Street, which will get to do all these deals.

Events are following this predicted pattern as Fannie and Freddie struggle to raise capital. The New York Times reports that investors are not enthusiastic about the most recent efforts to raise capital by Freddie Mac. It reports that on Tuesday, Freddie Mac raised $3 billion in five-year debt but the "1.13 percentage points [premium] over the rate the federal government pays for comparable borrowing" was more than double the "0.6 points" premium it paid earlier in the year.