A number of corporations bought auction rate securities with their excess cash. They believed that since the instruments offered better yield than many market funds, they would be good for balance sheet management. They also thought that since auction-rate paper had been liquid and widely traded since 1985 that moving in and out of the market would be easy.

It was easy until it wasn't.

The investment banks and money center banks which made the market in these instruments pulled out at the beginning of the credit crisis. They did not want to keep risking their own capital to buy the paper and hold it to keep the market trading. Traditionally what was not bought at one auction was picked up by banks and held until the next round of trading. In essence, large financial firms kept the market trading by underwriting the system in exchange for large commissions.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• The Wall Street Journal's "The Game" column speculates that one of the results of the Bear Stearns crash could be the push of investment banks and commercial ones closer together, which could result in better handling of volatility with more stability. Some observers think Merrill Lynch & Co (NYSE: MER), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) or The Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYSE: GS) could go that route by buying a commercial bank. Any move would force them to adhere to better reserve ratios, affect short term bank funding, and shrink balance sheets.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that Google Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG) will soon make available a new service that measure hits on the Internet with the intent of helping advertisers decide where to buy ads online and would directly compete with comScore Inc (NASDAQ: SCOR) and Nielsen Online. Ad executives said Google's method could make targeting markets more efficient.
• A Manhattan judge dismissed four claims made by American International Group Inc (NYSE: AIG) in its fight to regain control of a block of its shares held by Starr International, a company that once founded a lucrative compensation plan for AIG executives. AIG believes the shares held by Starr should continue to be used to fund employee compensation, the Financial Times reported.

WEB SITES:

• According to Scorpio Partnership, Bloomberg reported that UBS AG (NYSE: UBS) and Merrill Lynch had slower growth in assets under management last year due to losses connected to the U.S. subprime crisis.

Two separate pieces of news hit the market. They did not appear to be directly related, but they do say that employment on Wall Street could drop much further this year.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Citigroup's (NYSE: C) "will dismiss thousands of investment-banking employees world-wide as part of a plan to cut the roughly 65,000-employee group by 10%." The FT reports, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) "is now expected to cut up to 10 per cent of staff in the division that handles mergers and acquisition advice and corporate fundraisings."

Because Goldman is perceived as doing relative well in a tough financial environment, the news is particularly bad.

The information is another sign that the world of Wall Street is not turning around. If these companies saw a second half recovery, they might be less likely to cut so deeply.

But, it is part of a trend. After bottoming in March, U.S. financial stocks started to move back up at the end of Spring. There was talk that the credit crisis had seen its peak.

With new write-offs and thousand of people in the industry about to be out of work, it looks like the April rally was for suckers.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) Chief Executive Richard Fuld continues to keep his job even though shares of the New York-bank have slumped more than 60% this year. Meanwhile, American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG), whose shares are down 42%, ousted CEO Martin Sullivan because of the continued poor performance of the world's largest insurer.

Why didn't Fuld follow Sullivan onto the unemployment line, albeit the cushy one for failed CEOs? It makes no sense.

Last week, Fuld shocked investors by pre-announcing that Lehman lost $2.8 billion, or $5.14 per share, results that were officially confirmed today. In the earnings release, Fuld proclaimed the results as "unacceptable" and vowed to "take the necessary steps to restore the credibility of our great franchise." Well, at least he says that's what he wants to do. He dismissed Lehman President Joseph Gregory and Chief Financial Officer Erin Callan last week. On the conference call, Fuld even took responsibility for the loss and investors cheered this act of contrition, sending shares of Lehman up.

The euphoria is not going to last. I am not sure why Wall Street believes that Fuld can extricate Lehman from the financial quagmire that occurred on his watch. They certainly did not give Merrill Lynch & Co.'s (NYSE: MER) Stan O'Neal and Bear Stearns & Co.'s (NYSE: BSC) James Cayne or Citigroup Inc.'s (NYSE: C) the benefit of the doubt.

The news from Lehman (NYSE: LEH) was not bad enough. The brokerage will post a loss of $2.8 billion and raise $6 billion in new capital. Now word comes that big Swiss bank UBS (NYSE: UBS) is in trouble again.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "When it proposed its capital-raising plan to investors, UBS said further write-downs may hit earnings, and it said in May that some asset classes continued to deteriorate and will hamper future earnings."

Of course, the news begs the question: how bad can things get for US banks? Citigroup (NYSE: C) may be the prime example. It still holds billions in mortgage paper and LBO debt, and it could face charges on credit card defaults. The market has already started to price more trouble into the US bank's stock.

Citi is now trading below $20 for the first time since March when a panic hit a number of large US bank shares. The stock recovered to almost $27 in late April. Several other American banks have seen their shares drop by similar amounts.

Citi's stock probably has not found a bottom. If the bank reports weak numbers in the next two quarters, it may have to raise money the way Lehman did. Substantial dilution could take the shares down another 10% to 15%.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and the author of the Ten Stocks Under $10 letter.

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) is unmanageable. That's my conclusion after trying to understand its latest quarterly report. The concept behind this 100-armed corporate octopus is that people like to buy all their financial services in one place and therefore it makes sense to be able to sell them a full line of products from stocks to bank accounts. But I suspect that customers don't want all their financial eggs in one basket, so the concept is fatally flawed.

Moreover, its financial performance reveals that Citi is a complex mess whose many different businesses do not diversify its earnings streams. According to its quarterly report, Citi lost $5.1 billion. Most of the losses came from its Securities and Banking (-$6.4 billion), Alternative Investments (-$509 million), and U.S. Consumer (-$476 million) units. Two bright spots were $1.3 billion in earnings from International Consumer and $732 million in Transaction Services.

But wait, there's more in its huge, risky portfolio. Citi has $40 trillion in derivatives -- enormous bets on interest rates and currencies. And it has $1.2 trillion worth of off-balance sheet entities (remember Enron?). Nobody really knows what these are worth or how much they'll cost. And that doesn't even get us to the $262 billion in Level 3 assets -- illiquid, difficult-to-value securities -- which are 2.1 times Citi's $128 billion in capital. That's a pretty thin cushion for future write-downs.

It may be victory of hope over reason. Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) is telling everyone who will listen that it has enough cash to make it though the current crisis and will not have to raise any more.

It might be best for the management at Merrill to say nothing, but it cannot help itself. According to The Wall Street Journal, Merrill's top two financial executives "attempted to assuage concerns that Merrill will have to raise more equity to maintain its strength as its difficult-to-value assets and its exposure to weak counterparties rise."

Merrill has created reserves against future losses, but the firm acts as if it has an ability to look into the future. If the current credit crisis has two hallmarks, they are that Wall Street did not see the problems coming and that, over time, the trouble seems to be getting worse and not better. Merrill not only has to face mortgage-backed securities losses but it also faces troubles with LBO loans and consumer credit derivatives.

Investors are having none of it. Over the last six months, shares in Merrill are down almost 15%, about the same as Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) and not nearly as good as the Dow.

Merrill now faces the potential humiliation of not living up to its promise if the tide turns against it later in the year. Shareholders don't like managements to make promises that they cannot keep.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Some Wall Street analysts believe that most write-offs for subprime mortgages, LBO loans, and other credit paper are behind the big banks and brokerages. Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) analysts think otherwise.

According to Bloomberg: "Wall Street banks, brokerages and hedge funds may report $460 billion in credit losses from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, or almost four times the amount already disclosed."

If the analysis is true, it will cause two huge problems in the financial markets. The first is that banks and brokerages will probably have to raise more money. This capital may be hard to come by. Sovereign funds and private equity firms appear to have lost their appetites for investing in US financial companies while their stocks keep dropping. That leaves the Fed to provide more capital, which will have to come from someplace. That someplace is the tax base especially individual taxpayers.

The other byproduct of more losses is that banks will cut lending to customers even further instead of risking capital on consumer credit, auto loans, mortgages, and small business loans.

In other words, borrowing a dollar for a cup of coffee may be out of the question.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

As investors, we've been bombarded over the past couple of months with negative news coming from Wall Street banks that either underwrote, invested in, or had clients who invested in bad mortgages or some derivative of them. While these firms have written down billions in assets on their balance sheets, investors like Joe Lewis, the Australian billionaire who put $1 billion into Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) and promptly saw his investment drop almost 100%, have been left holding the bag.

Bloomberg is out this morning with an article which details some of the fallout from this process. According to Bloomberg, after the Internet bubble burst, 39,800 jobs at big banking firms were eliminated during the same period. The number climbed to 90,000 in the next two years, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

While not everyone cries over millionaire bankers losing their jobs, there is certainly fallout that hurts everyone dependent on a healthy economy. One recruiter interviewed by Bloomberg predicted that the total headcount reduction could be more than 100,000 in a few years. Lawyers, realtors, and mortgage brokers are feeling the heat.

According to Bloomberg, the biggest cutters have been:

• Citigroup 6,200
• Lehman Brothers 4,990
• Bank of America 3,650
  

I tend to think that from a cycle point of view, Wall Street cuts harshly only to rehire when things pick up.

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) reported earnings this morning that while dropped significantly, still beat Wall Streett's expectations. Citing strong equity sales and trading profits, the large investment bank impressed analysts with better-than-expected performance. Net revenues dropped 17% but things weren't quite as bad as analysts were forecasting.

In spite of fourth quarter results deemed "embarassing" by CEO John Mack, MS joins the ranks of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH), two investment banks whose relatively benign performance in the face of very strong headwinds, has helped allay some concerns about a liquidity traffic jam for financial firms.

Bloomberg ran a story on Morgan's performance here. The same story quoted an asset manager as saying "Any business that Bear Stearns had probably has gone to someone else." At least that's some good news for the walking wounded.

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

Some fairly simple math indicates that it wouldn't take much to wipe out the capital of the banks and hedge funds. And this simple math helps explain why the popular delusion that 'liquidity' = 'capital' is so dangerous. That mental equation works just as easily to create the illusion of prosperity as it does to eliminate the capital that is supposed to stand as bulwark against bad lending decisions.

That's because investment banks and hedge funds combined have borrowed $10.9 trillion on a sushi-thin slice of equity of $340 billion. Newsweek reports that on average, the ratio of borrowed money to underlying capital for investment banks and hedge funds is about 32-1. It reports that in 2006, investment banks had an estimated $280 billion in capital. At 32-1, the investment banks are borrowing $8.96 trillion. Meanwhile, hedge funds manage $1.9 trillion worth of assets – which would represent $60 billion in equity and $1.94 trillion worth of debt.

What would it take to gobble up that little piece of sushi? Well, collateralized debt obligations (CDO) represented a $6.1 trillion market. I say 'were' because I am guessing that this figure refers to the value of the CDOs when they were issued. And CDOs seem to be worth some amount below that now. I have seen estimates that they are worth 20 cents to 40 cents on the dollar of their original value.

But if investment banks and hedge funds had used all their money to buy these CDOs, then it would take a mere 6% decline in their value to wipe out that $340 billion in capital. Obviously investment banks and hedge funds have invested in other things besides CDOs. But when you borrow $32 for every dollar in capital, there's not much room for error.

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

The Associated Press reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) reported earnings that missed earnings expectations of 94 cents per share by 9%. And its 86 cents a share actual earnings disappointed investors. Nonetheless, the stock is up in pre-market trading.

The culprit was --once again -- consumer lending. JPMorgan Chase boosted its provisions for loan losses by $2.54 billion. That boost was higher than the $1.79 billion added during the third quarter and the $1.13 billion added in the year earlier period. The investment bank's profit plunged 88% to $124 million, and the card services' segment's profit fell 15% to $609 million. The company anticipates rising default and delinquency rates in credit cards.

A bit of good news for JPMorgan Chase. Commercial banking profit rose 13% to $288 million, Treasury and Security Services profit rose 65% to a record $422 million, Asset Management profit rose 29% to a record $527 million, and Retail Financial Services climbed 5% to $752 million, as improvements in mortgage banking offset weakness in auto lending and regional banking.

For 2007 JPMorgan Chase's net income in 2007 was a record $15.4 billion, or $4.38 a share, on record revenue of $71.4 billion. Overall -- not too shabby compared to its peers.

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 JPMorgan Chase securities.

Both Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and Citigroup (NYSE: C) plan to raise a great deal more money to shore up their battered balance sheets, mostly from foreign governments.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Merrill is expected to get $3 billion to $4 billion, much of it from a Middle Eastern government investment fund. Citi could get as much as $10 billion, likely all from foreign governments."

While the investments may raise questions in Washington about overseas capital controlling large interests in US financial companies, it also begs a more interesting question. Why aren't large pools of US capital investing in US companies? Certainly Warren Buffett or Calpers have the funds to take large pieces of companies like Citigroup.

The answer may be that sovereign funds have a much longer time horizon to get their money back. That would make sense since they only answer to their governments.

The only other explanation is that US institutions don't have much faith in the American economy and financial structure.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

To a Wall Street compensation neophyte, a "bonus" would seem to be something paid in the event of performance beyond that which is expected. A reader of Dictionary.com might reach a similar conclusion:

bo·nus /ˈboʊnəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[boh-nuhs] noun, plural -nus·es.

1. something given or paid over and above what is due.
2. a sum of money granted or given to an employee, a returned soldier, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.

So in light of the multi-billion subprime losses that nearly every major Wall Street firm is taking, how can it be that bonuses at Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) soared 18% year over year after a $9.4 billion writedown on bad mortgages? The stock has lost about a third of its value in the past few months, raising questions about the value the company has provided to shareholders.

You almost have to stand in awe of CFO Colm Kelleher's explanation: "If you were to normalize our business ... you would see we had a record year across the whole enterprise". (Emphasis added)

On Tuesday, almighty Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) reported record earnings for the umpteenth time. And, as usual, the company's earnings report was the biggest story of the day (there are already more than 40 different takes on this news from major news sources). I won't waste your time with all the intricate details; I'll summarize by saying I'm not impressed. Sure, I respect Goldman as the best of breed company in their sector -- not that it's very difficult to outperform writedown-loving Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) -- but c'mon, for all their pedigree, their stock stinks!

No matter the record $3.17 quarterly profit and the incredible amount of hard work put in by the company's 34,809 full-time employees, based on Tuesday's closing price of $201.51, Goldman's stock is nearly $50 off its highs and up only 79 cents per share, from $200.72, since the beginning of 2007. Again, better than their competitors, but in terms of stock performance, aka the only thing that matters to investors -- pathetic.

That's right, let all the talking heads and journalists report on Goldman's results and debate what it means for the financial sector, the economy, the fate of the world, etc., I care only about their stock. So, I say don't let this company's solid business performance and widespread popularity fool you, there are bigger issues in play here that will continue to haunt this stock. With the mounting uncertainty over the housing market, consumer debt, the economy, and this tired-looking bull market, there are far more interesting stocks out there and if you're comfortable with short selling, then even Goldman's competitors become better plays because their stocks at least exhibit a clear trend (a perfect downtrend that is)!

Timothy Sykes writes the blog timothysykes.com, is a former hedge fund manager, the star of the TV show Wall Street Warriors and author of the book, An American Hedge Fund: How I Made $2 Million as a Stock Operator & Created a Hedge Fund