Best and Highest Value Use

So this is interesting and no, this isn’t really about assessments. I mean, it is about assessments, but there are so many bigger issues rolled into this new legal development.

In the new litigant a week merry-go-round in Judge Wettick’s courtroom (it really must be getting crowded), the latest is the (collective) property owner of one R.J. Casey Industrial Park who has a slew of issues.

One of many points is a contention that it is against Pennsylvania’s uniformity clause to assess commercial property differently than residential property which is indeed how it is done here and most everywhere else. Problem with that is that commercial properties across the state have been assessed different than residential properties for decades. So I will let the attorneys fight over that one, it is just one of the issues.

Then they seem to point out the dearth of information on the assessment. Here are points 16 and 17 in their filing:

16. Regarding commercial properties, the Property Record Cards available for purchase on the Third Floor of the County Office Building, do not contain any information on the New Assessments.

17. Accordingly, unlike residential property owners, commercial property owners evaluating their New Assessments have no access to any information that the County used to determine the New Assessments.

Lots of capitals in that, but to be sure I feel their pain. Though I do get a chuckle of someone really digging up (and dusting off) a property record card and expecting to find much relating to the latest machinations written down in ink. Are those things still written in cursive? For the record, the online information is just a small part of what what went into determining new residential values.  I see no reduced form from any of the many regressions that were used.  ‘Comps’ are at most part of the equation and many overinterpret their role in the assessment I am pretty sure.  There is a funny story back from when the original 2001 Sabre numbers came out which didn’t really used comps the same way CLT did.  The county web site did not list any ‘comps’ for a property, but people so expected to see them that eventually the web site was altered to show a few comparable properties that were picked ex post… though the properties listed really had no specific input into setting a particular property value becuase of the way the Sabre Systems algorithms worked. (that is a very short version of a very very long story.. but I digress).

To be fair I should go back to point 15 in the filing which is clearer and shows they did start out digitial:

15. Regarding Commercial Properties, the county provides no information online regarding the comparable sales used to determine New Assessments or even the gross square footage of an improvement on a commercial property. The County does provide this information online for residential properties.

Well, some information at least. Otherwise ditto.
Nonetheless, the motivation in the end must be to get a lower assessment and a lower tax bill.  First off realize that for commercial property across the nation the standard for property assessment is not market valuation that it commonly is for residential values but “Highest and Best Use of the real property”. For a lot of properties that distinction may not be such a big deal, but for some in certain unique locations it could be a big deal.

So here the property owner is upset having seen their assessment for 6 properties jump from $2.7 million to $11.3 million. A scary 340% increase in nominal value. Even with our notional revenue neutrality it works out to a potential tax increase of 280%, so more than enough to be upset. So.. is the increased assessment some gross error on the part of the assessors, or is something else going on?  Could it be the highest and best use for the property has changed?

Again, like the Mt. Washington parking space, we may have found the most exceptional case out there. Is there anything unique about this property?
So where is this property?  All of the properties at issue in the filing are located in the otherwise depopulated Chateau neighborhood (why we still call it a neighborhood is another issue since literally no more than 10 people live there.. likely a lot less.. unless you count folks sleeping under the slots machines I guess). The properties in question are all along the riverfront a helf mile from the edge of a property recently redeveloped and otherwise known as 777 Casino Dr. Nice new bike trail cuts through the properties in question and there are some nice marinas there it looks like.

So lets ponder the ‘old’ assessment values which everyone likes to refer to as 2011 values which they really are not. They are, again, base year assessments based on what circumtance were in 2002, if not prior.  Yes, the 2002 base year assessment really means that the ‘old’ values were based on what the market would bear for a property in 2002. Back then the idea of a casino was not yet really formed, and even if it was there was no thought the casino would be placed over on the North Shore there where the Rivers Casino wound up. Remember Don Barden really came in with a somewhat unexpected bid and was clearly not expected to beat out the Penguins backed project slated for the Lower Hill District, nor the Station Square locations that everyone was focusing on. The location on the North Shore and the big empty plot of land on the North Shore there was fallow and without anyone really expecting much to be made of it anytime soon. I am pretty sure that was a big drag on all nearby real estate. Even the North Shore Connector was so far from completion, and opposition so loud, that it would not have been reasonable for it to have had any impact on real estate values at the time. Now it is on the verge of opening. Could it not have some positive impact on land values anywhere near it.

So now, 10 years later.. it is not to say there is any vast demand for land over there and I am unclear was nearby development the casino has wrought… but would it really be reasonable to think there has not been any impact on nearby property which. In this case the 5 properties in question are add up to either 5 or 10 acres (I am confued because the itemized parce 22-J-67 is listed as being owned by the URA?? even though there is no mention of the URA in the filing??)  of land all effectively riverfront parcels though I am not sure if they own all the way to the river itself.

Someday when we ever really see data out of all this I will work up a map of the value per acre along all of Pittsburgh’s rivers before and after the reassessment.  It might be interesting to see how the price gradient moving away from the river has changed over time. It would be an interesting factoid at least to see if any of the vast efforts to redevelop our riverfronts have had any meaningful impact capitalized into real estate values of real estate close to the riverfront. Just imagine the counterfactual if they did not and what that would mean?

So there is a bit of Henry Georgism in the highest and best use construct. It is certainly true that the parcels might not currently be ‘worth’ the new higher assessments placed on them.. but if assessments stay low, and taxes stay low, there will that much less incentive to ever fully develop those properties to the “highest value” use.  There is only so much riverfront property near the Casino (and the stadia and the science center) to be had. I think that is the core reason commercial properties are assessed differently to begin with.

I’m thinking there is a future casino-annex hotel latent in the geography there. Best and highest value use?

Homework

It’s like the county is giving me programming homework.

OK.  All ‘new’ assessment values for City of Pittsburgh commerical parcels are in a comma delimited file online here. Just two fields, Block and lot number (one field) and the 2012 assessment.  Scraped with this program if you are interested.

So the top 10 new commercial vauations in the city that I come up with are….

500 Grant St. $242 million
Rivers Casino $242 million
1 PPG Place $238 million
600 Grant St. (aka Steel Tower) $233 Million
301 Grant St. $167 million
1001 Liberty $149 million
500 Ross St. $102 million
210 6th St. $98 million
401 Liberty $93 million
625 Liberty $92 million

So yes, I am sure they will all appeal and some may be overassessed.  But it begs some questions on others.  Look at the Steel Building (or Steel Tower or 600 Grant St. or whatever its moniker is these days).  $233 million dollar assessment, but it is reported to have sold for $250 million last year all while it paid no real estate transfer tax on the deal.  In past years the City of School District might have appealed against the assessment, but I suspect the political climate precludes that happening this year.   This is speculation, but that steel building sale may be setting the market in the valuations.

Likewise the casino valuation will be appealed (again?), but realize that since it’s base year assessment value set all sort of things have happened.  The law changed allowing them to engage in the much more profitable table games was enacted and in a sense that would impact what the property is worth.  For an establishment reportedly set up with $800 million in investment, you think it might be worth a third of that in the assessment valuation?

I have an idea..  they would need to change some laws for this to happen, but for anyone really balking at their assessment valuation then the fallback could be to use replacement cost.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

China's Future Deconstructed: Holmes vs. Chang

Frank Holmes Gordon Chang China has become the $5.88 trillion question in the world financial equation for 2012. In an attempt to gauge the direction of this economic elephant, Cambridge House International is asking two China experts to debate the health of the second-largest economy at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference January 22. We called the two speakers for a preview of the tactics they will take in this epic debate.

Frank Holmes, chief executive and chief investment officer at U.S. Global Investors, will focus on the upside of massive Chinese modernization and growth. He is the recipient of both Mining Fund Manager of the Year Award from Mining Journal and International Citizen of the Year Award from the World Affairs Council of America and has a long-term investor’s view of international geopolitics.

Author and Commentator Gordon Chang literally wrote the book on why investors should be wary of China’s growth. His book The Coming Collapse of China has attracted attention from the likes of the LA Times and Asia Times and many other publications in between. He has made appearances on Fox News and regularly contributes to Business Insider, Barron’s, National Review and Forbes magazines. When he lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades, most recently in Shanghai as counsel to the American law firm Paul Weiss, he saw the ghost cities and environmental challenges up close.

“The debate is a direct response to attendees who need to know if China is on a course to grow, slow or blow,” said Nicole Evans, president of the Cambridge House International Conference Division. The Gold Report called these two experts to find out the numbers behind why they have such different predictions about how this enigmatic country will fare in the coming years.

Frank Holmes: This veteran investment advisor based his positive prognosis for China and its Eastern neighbors on a combination of tacit knowledge learned firsthand through travel and observation of geopolitical conditions along with explicit knowledge of history and the markets.

He studies S-curve patterns, modeled on economist Simon Kuznets’ 20-year long cycles. For example, the world’s population has grown from 1 billion in the 1800s to 7 billion today, which has drastically affected commodity consumption and infrastructure buildout. “Nowhere is this more evident than in the emerging markets, such as China,” Holmes said.

“When governments have invested in infrastructure, there has been a powerful impact on gross domestic product (GDP) numbers.” For example, he pointed to the 1950s, when Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, allowing commerce to expand across the nation, with restaurants including Dairy Queen and McDonald’s experiencing tremendous growth over the next several decades. “Paved roads from coast to coast helped sustain a more than tenfold increase in U.S. GDP,” Holmes said.

“Whereas the U.S. connected 160 million people with nearly 47,000 miles of freeways, by 2020 China will connect 700 million people across 250 cities, spanning more than 47,000 miles of interstate and 18,000 miles of rail,” Holmes explained.

Holmes estimated that over the next 25 years, about $41 trillion will be spent on global infrastructure—$6 trillion has been approved for the 2011 through 2013 timeframe with China projected to spend half of that $6 trillion. He believes these investments will result in rising GDP per capita and trigger a consumption economy.

“Once China connects its super cities, it will enable more Chinese to travel around the country, resulting in a completely different consumption pattern. You will see train stations with 50-story condominiums along with U.S. restaurants that have already been expanding in China, including McDonald’s, Dairy Queen and Starbucks. Major hotel chains, such as Wyndham, Starwood and Hilton, along with luxury goods businesses including Cartier, Hermes and Gucci will compete for market share. Infrastructure will change the face of the economy in China just the way it did in the U.S.,” said Holmes.

“We are big believers that government policies are precursors to change, so our investment team continuously tracks the fiscal and monetary policies of the world’s largest countries in terms of economic stature and population. The G-7 (industrialized) countries are 15% of the world’s population but 50% of the world’s GDP and growing only about 1%. Western countries seem to be focused on cutting back infrastructure spending and raising taxes to pay for entitlements. At the same time, E-7 (emerging) countries comprise 50% of the world’s population with 20% of the world’s GDP. However, these countries are growing at 7% to 8% and include a rising middle class of some 60 million people out of a total 2.2 billion people. But, 60 million people making $30,000 a year is very significant. Think about the movie “Slumdog Millionaire”—this is what is happening throughout Asia. That is why companies such as Gap and GM and KFC are focusing on expanding in China where its residents love American products and pack the stores in Beijing.”

Holmes also saw important policy changes in the works that could improve China’s economic outlook. “Over the past 10 years, we have seen a slow migration of more property rights being given to people in China. The largest transfer of real estate in the history of mankind took place in China seven years ago when more than $500 billion of real estate value was basically transferred to farmers. That was followed by condo building. Additionally, to attract public companies, Shanghai adopted the Hong Kong Stock Exchange listing and bankruptcy systems, which are based on common law. This is significant because if you look at all the countries that have had financial problems over time, no common law system has ever gone bankrupt. Civil law has. China is slowly adopting a rule of law system.”

Not all of the changes have been smooth. “One of the biggest things that China has been wrestling with is the fear of inflation,” Holmes said. “The government raised the minimum wage and that resulted in a big spike in food inflation. Then it had to deal with real estate inflation in Shanghai and the cities along the ocean. It required banks to keep more reserves, up to 20% in some cases, to avoid the problems now occurring in European banks. A tax on speculative real estate slowed the economy and it showed up in the psychology of the stock market.

“The spike is slowly reversing and rates are falling. Because there is so much less borrowing generally in China than in the rest of the world, prices rebound much faster,” Holmes said. “Only 25% of homes have mortgages so the impact of bankruptcies is much smaller. Also, I don’t think they’re going to print money the way they did in 2008. The Chinese government will move slowly to make sure the country doesn’t get hurt by Europe’s slowdown.”

Based on money supply, debt levels and the weakness of the dollar, Holmes predicted economic activity in the emerging countries should double over the next five years. “It is going to be between 8% and 9% this year and it has another 10 years of growth ahead of it,” Holmes said. “Investors need to understand volatility and not be fearful of it. If you are trading futures where your leverage is 10 to 1 and you have a big correction, you can get wiped out. But, if you are a cash business, you understand when these markets go through these corrections. Solid companies paying dividends can be an attractive investment over the long term.”

Gordon Chang: This China-watcher recently wrote an article for Forbes that said what others considered positive November trade numbers—exports up 13.8%, imports up 22.1% year-over-year—was actually an indication of flat consumer demand once the commodities were factored out. His conclusion was that the government was taking advantage of low prices to stockpile things like soybeans, copper and iron ore while domestic demand remained stagnant. “Since September, we have seen essentially flatlining growth,” he said.

“The growth over the last three decades has been absolutely stunning, but that was then, and this is now,” Chang cautioned. “After 35 years of virtually uninterrupted growth, the Chinese economy hit an inflection point, probably in September of this year. I think we are going to see a long-term cycle down. There are a number of reasons for it, some of them short term, some of them long term. The reasons that created this growth either no longer exist or are disappearing fast. Deng Xiaoping’s policy of reform paired with the end of the Cold War and expansion of globalization triggered growth in the 1980s. However, under current leader Hu Jintao, China has seen the reversal of reform, with the government partially renationalizing the economy. Today, we are in the second part of a global downturn, which will be much worse than what started in 2008. A trade-dependent economy like China’s is going to have real problems. Additionally, China was aided by the demographic dividend, an extraordinary bulge in the Chinese workforce, which by most estimates will level off between 2013 and 2016, leaving a demographic tax where one worker supports two parents and four grandparents.”

Chang pointed to stagnant electricity consumption, flat car sales, plunging industrial orders and collapsing property prices. “For example, in October, we saw property prices collapse 30% in places like Shanghai and Beijing, and actually across the country. That has to eventually trigger a negative wealth effect.

“Domestic growth is vital for a sustainable economy,” Chang said. “Last year, domestic consumption comprised less than 34% of Chinese GDP and it has been dropping in recent years. That means China is not restructuring its economy because the problems go to the core of the political model. The government would have to let the Renminbi float, allow banks to offer market rates of interest to depositors and state enterprises, allow workers to bargain collectively to get higher wages and provide a better social safety net, especially in the health care area. These are things that Beijing didn’t do a half-decade ago when it was growing at 9.9% and they’re certainly not going to do so now in a very difficult environment.”

On the manufacturing side, Chang referred to the December HSBC/Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI). “It showed an absolute, outright falloff in industrial orders domestically. I think that is a really important indication of the problems,” Chang explained. Technically, the Chinese economy went from expansion in October to contraction in November when it crossed the critical 50 line. Any number above 50 shows expansion; any number below 50 shows contraction.

The fact that China is reporting negative numbers is telling in itself, according to Chang, who said often government-issued statistics conflict with reports from other sources. Beijing reported 13.8% export growth in November. However, during that same period factories went bankrupt, factory owners fled because they couldn’t pay their debts and some of them took their own lives. Even more damning are container and freight statistics, including reports from mega-container shipper Cathay Pacific that showed November cargo shipments down 13.8%. “Exports to Europe have fallen off the cliff and the EU was China’s largest trading partner so something doesn’t add up,” he said.

For the final blow, Chang pointed to the actions of the Chinese government. “If China really does have robust, 8–9% growth as everybody says, why is the central government starting to stimulate the economy again? That just doesn’t make any sense. If we look at things like imports and exports, I think the economy is really in trouble.”

Chang warned of political consequences if the country is not growing at least close to a double-digit rate. “I don’t know if China can stand 3% growth—or the other very real possibility, contraction. The American government bases its legitimacy on the nature of its political system. The legitimacy of the Communist Party is primarily based on the continual delivery of prosperity. Already, the number of protests in China has increased dramatically from maybe 70,000 mass incidents a year in 2005, to as many as 280,000 last year. In addition to strikes, riots, insurrections and bombings, the standoff between villagers and the authorities in Guangdong province are threatening the future of the Communist Party.”

One solution is for the Chinese government to continue to spend millions on infrastructure to create growth as it did when it spent $1.1 trillion after the 2008 downturn. “This tactic is of limited usefulness the second time around,” Chang warned. “It may be able to play out the game for 18 months, maybe two years at the outside, but it’s pretty much done. Plus, the artificial stimulus also created a stock market bubble, inflation, ghost cities, banking weakness and property bubbles. Massive spending didn’t avoid problems, it just postponed them and made them bigger and more difficult to solve.”

Chang said that people in China are starting to see the reality of the problem. “There is a sense of pessimism. Starting in October, we saw large, unexplained transfers of money out of the country.”

The bright spot, according to Chang, is that while China will not be able to fuel a global recovery with a consumer-driven middle class, a Chinese meltdown won’t be a major blow to the U.S. either. “We have the world’s largest internal market; 70% of our GDP relates to consumption. Exports don’t really play that much of a role in the U.S. as it does in other major economies. So China can fall off the cliff in a sense, and it would have some negative effect but not very much. In fact, we might benefit from it.”

Chang’s conclusion? “People say the Chinese economy is the global engine of growth, but that’s not true. The engine has been the American consumer because we are taking every other country’s exports, and the Chinese, through predatory and mercantilist policies, have been grabbing growth from other countries. For the last 200 years, China has been a potential source of customers for other countries. Still, domestic demand isn’t that significant. China’s imports lately have been commodities and that is going to fall off because China’s exports of manufactured goods, to Europe and the U.S., are going to be stagnant or lower than they have been in the past. So China really reacts to the rest of the world. If the changes over the next couple of months are as dramatic as they’ve been for the past two, then we’re going to be looking at a very different China. The Chinese economy could fall into a big black hole with 1–2% growth or even contraction. Can the government turn it around as it has in the past? That’s the money question.”

Frank Holmes is CEO and chief investment officer at U.S. Global Investors Inc., which manages a diversified family of mutual funds and hedge funds specializing in natural resources, emerging markets and infrastructure. In 2006 Mining Journal, a leading publication for the global resources industry, chose Holmes as mining fund manager of the year. Holmes co-authored The Goldwatcher: Demystifying Gold Investing (2008). A regular contributor to investor-education websites and speaker at investment conferences, he writes articles for investment-focused publications and appears on television as a business commentator.

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World. His first book is The Coming Collapse of China. He is a columnist at Forbes.com and The Daily and blogs at World Affairs Journal. He lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades, most recently in Shanghai, as counsel to the American law firm Paul Weiss and earlier in Hong Kong as partner in the international law firm Baker & McKenzie. His writings on China and North Korea have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Far Eastern Economic Review, the International Herald Tribune, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Barron’s. He has given briefings at the National Intelligence Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the Pentagon. Chang has appeared before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, the BBC, and Bloomberg Television. He has appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Rock, Paper, Wettick

We have the gnashing over the apparent real estate assessment reprieve granted by the state to Washington County, but not equally for Allegheny.  So I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure Judge Wettick’s opinion in all of this is based almost entirely on some equal protection clauses in the state constitution.  So if a legislature passes a law attempting to preempt a judicial ruling based on the state constitution… who wins?

Still, as I pointed out last week, the current schedule so disclosed have Monday as the potential first day new values can be mailed out.   So this story is all exquisite timing for us.

On this misconceived issue of how Allegheny County assessments will hurt it economically:  What I looked at earlier in the year (post: “Groundhog will returneth“) were the county by county rankings for real estate assessment accuracy as measured by the State Tax Equalization Board.  So most all other counties do in fact fare worse than us when it comes to real estate assessment accuracy and fairness. Somehow this is a bad thing for us, and will be worse if we actually try and be fair and accurate.

Does it matter to our current or future economic growth as is oft claimed?  No, of course not.  Or, if it does, it may matter in the completely opposite way than people think.  In fact, in some ways Allegheny County has been doing pretty well relative to it’s neighborbors ever since it implemented its first in a generation reassessment in 2001… including and especially when it comes to inter-county migration within the region.  Maybe our reassessment has some causal impact on all of that?  Maybe our growth was inhibited by not implementing the 2005 reassessment?  Can I back up either of those possibilities?  No, but they make as much sense as claiming completely counterfactually that having Allegheny County implementing a reassessment will hurt it competitively.

Which is not to say there will not be a lot of individual unhappiness when the bills arrive.  Lots of real estate appreciation for us over the last decade. The ultimate question is whether your tax bill goes up, but that is another question altogether.   Won’t be any lack of blog-fodder through the fall is all I can say.

Still: Groundhog Day in the Assessment Office.  I’m still waiting for Ed Schoenenberger to pop up on radar, but he seems to have gone to ground more completely than even Bernardo Katz.  Bernardo pops up in the ether from time to time, Interpol warrant or not.  Ed has just vanished.  I still wonder how the county ever found him in the first place.

Value Investing

I’ve been meaning to ask what is up with the property assessment appeal filed by Rivers Casino.  No need since there is an update: Rivers Casino trying to reduce tax burden

Remember, this is the case where a business invested reportedly $800 million in a business operation all at a single location.  Probably $400-500 million of that was in property related investment.  A generous calculation of its construction replacement cost was set at $300 million….yet despite all of that, the county’s official assessment value (set by the now former chief assessment officer), which came in at all of $200 million, was deemed to be unfair by casino management.

Wonder what the parking garages would be worth if put on the tax rolls?  oh, nevermind….

The news seems to say the first round of appeals which were scheduled for yesterday passed without contest by the casino, setting up potential further appeals later on.  We were awaiting to see what arguments they would put forth to justify a lower assessment valuation. Could be interesting if they were to try to justify a lower assessment by saying they are losing money.

Everything said in the public record seems awfully irrelevant to me, even if, or especially if, true.  The casino argues it is the highest assessed valuation for any casino in the state.  Likely true, but 1) has anyone looked at the base years most counties in Pennsylvania use for property assessment.  Some like Butler and Crawford Counties use base years of 1969.  Other counties have assessments set at base years that are all at almost random dates over the last 4 decades.  The result of which is that quoting other counties’ assessment valuations is near meaningless.  and 2) are any other casinos built in the densest, most expensive parts of their regions on potentially prime river frontage?  We can quibble over some things, but I don’t think any other operating casino in the state is a comparison for the value of the casino here.

The other argument they cite, which is something I thought I mentioned here long ago, is that the Rivers Casino is indeed the highest valuation for any single non tax-exempt parcel in the city if not the entire county.  Not sure why that is relevant, but as a factoid in itself it is true.  Quite true actually.   Some may have already seen the vanilla version of the graphic below which is a representation of effective property valuation across neighborhoods in the city of Pittsburgh.  Effective here being defined as aggregate tax assessment net of long term tax delinquencies that are presumed to not be generating revenues.  I’ve modified it to treat the Rivers Casino in itself as a neighborhood.

The sad truth is that the current (potentially underassessed) valuation of the Rivers Casino is more than the aggregate real estate valuations across 20 lowest-valued city neighborhoods combined.   That’s an awful fact in itself.  Does not support the casino is undervalued at all.  Given that the casino represents a bigger investment than has been made in those 20 neighborhoods is the sad corollary.  So something would be wrong in a pathological sense if the casino was not valued at least as high as it was.  Otherwise you have to start by asking why would anyone invest so much to build something worth cents on the dollar the moment it is completed?  A metaphysical question.

Anyway, here is the graphic.  The interactive version of this is here on Manyeyes.

Bankrupt Banks

BANKS HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH CAPITAL

At a congressional oversight panel on the government’s financial rescue program the tax evading Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified, “Currently, the vast majority of banks have more capital than they need to be considered well capitalized by their regulators.”  With the recent fair-value lying accounting changes banks have reported surging quarterly profits.  Even the single digit midget Bank of America booked a first quarter net income of $4.247 billion – 6% more than it made in all of 2008.

Olivier Garret, CEO of Casey Research, asks a couple penetrating questions and gives a couple answers.

“For starters, just where did all this income come from?  And has credit quality really improved.

The answers to both can be found buried in a company press release bearing the encouraging title “Bank of America Earns $4.2 Billion in First Quarter.”

I’d like to draw your attention to the four most telling excerpts from this release.

  1. Equity investment income includes a $1.9 billion pretax gain on the sale of China Construction Bank (CCB) shares.”
  2. Noninterest income included $2.2 billion in gains related to mark-to-market adjustments on certain Merrill Lynch structured notes as a result of credit spreads widening.”
  3. Credit quality deteriorated further across all lines of business as housing prices continued to fall and the economic environment weakened.”
  4. Nonperforming assets were $25.7 billion compared with $18.2 billion at December 31, 2008 and $7.8 billion at March 31, 2008, reflecting the continued deterioration in portfolios tied to housing.”

BANKRUPT BANKS

Bank of America makes $4.2B almost completely from a one time sale of a Chinese bank and some accounting sorcery on Merrill’s failing mortgages.  Looking at the cash position of Bank of America if those two extraordinary events were backed out and preferred dividends were included then Bank of America actually bled about $1.3B.

The head of the sorcery order, Goldman Sachs, was very creative by changing its reporting calendar which effectively erased the impact of $1.5B loss in December from showing up in its earning statements although it still flowed through to the balance sheet.  Bank of America is not the only bank with these shenanigans.

The FDIC poltergeist possessed another four banks on Friday bringing the total for the year to 29.  The evaporated banks that went poof were dotted across the nation holding about $1.6B in deposits including American Southern Bank of Kennesaw, GA with $104M in deposits, Heritage Bank of Farmington Hills, MI with $152M in deposits, First Bank of Beverly Hills in Calabasas, CA with $1B in deposits and the First Bank of Idaho in Ketchum, ID with $374M in deposits.

DETERIORATING CREDIT QUALITY

It is clear that credit quality continues to deteriorate at the banks and almost all banks are engaged in fraudulent accounting sorcery.  On the bright side for these vampires, the steep yield curve helps generate tremendous real income for the banks as they are able to suck the life out of the remaining wealth generating companies in the economy.

JP Morgan reported a stunning profit because the value of their bonds declined in the market and Citigroup had a similar $2.5B gain.

MARKED DOWN BUT NOT ENOUGH

A few days ago I attended an art walk with some colleagues.  While the funnel cakes, BBQ, smoothies and live music were fun we began to chatter about business.

One of them happened to be a commercial property appraiser.  He was telling me about the difficulty of appraising buildings because the market is failing to clear and data points are getting extremely scarce.  For example, quarterly he appraises a beautiful 100,000+ square foot high-quality office building that overlooking the Pacific in Oceanside, CA.

Usually this premium building is never vacant but starting November 2008 its vacancy rate climbed to about 20%.  He avoided a write down in Q4 2008 turning in a $64M appraisal.  But because the vacancy rate, lack of comps, etc. is now typical for the market in Q1 2009 he had to evaporate $8M from the building turning in an appraisal of $56M and did not receive any complaint from the client.  He told me he is currently working on the Q2 appraisal and figures he will need to evaporate another $4M.  This is what happens to real estate values when the discounted future cash flows decline because of huge vacancies and leases being renegotiated.

NO BID THEN NO VALUE ASSESSMENT

My suggestion for valuing the building if the market was not clearing and there were no comps was a simple $0.  Then I told him the story of my encounter with a senior partner from DLA Piper whose client had a 40+ story condominium that was worth less than worthless.

Why is there such an effort to keep the asset prices high? If these assets are being ‘held for the long-term’ then it should not matter if they are carried on the balance sheet at tremendously understated values.  After all, Mr. Buffett often takes this approach.

I have never heard of an investor suing or regulator prosecuting fraud, except perhaps in divorce, tax or similar cases, because assets were undervalued on the balance sheets.  They can always be marked up later or a gain can be taken at a sale.  Additionally, this may even have beneficial tax consequences.

Of course, this type of accounting methodology may have a negative effect on fraudsters, Ponzi scam artists and fractional reserve bankers who are by definition engaged in embezzlement.  These immoral individuals always want to misrepresent asset values to the upside but never the downside and prosecuting fractional reserve banking as embezzlement would be beneficial for society and lead to a more efficient allocation of resources.

ILLUSORY INCOME VERSUS REAL ASSETS

So let me get this straight:  the greater depression is intentionally exacerbated with a skyrocketing unemployment rate, construction and commercial loans become impaired as projects are either stopped because the unsustainable consumer economy is grinding to a halt or phantom equity is evaporated.  This causes the banks to either go under or become more of a credit risk.  If the bank survives then it is an even a higher credit risk as their debt trades at a discount and that discount is booked as income.  The banks record profits, CNBC declares all is well and the stock market soars.

By comparison, a consumer charges up a bunch of credit card debt at McDonald’s, loses their job, their credit worthiness diminishes and the bid for the consumer’s credit card debt in the market declines so the the consumer books income.  Which begs three important questions:  Is there any real income?  Will a real economic loss be taken?  By whom?

Wealth can take two forms:  (1) a financial asset or (2) a tangible asset.  Tangible assets have intrinsic value and can never become worthless.

Uncertainty from the lying on financial statements and by costumed government officials is briskly eroding the confidence of a inherently unsound confidence based system.  In times like these there stands only one safe haven:  commodity currency.  At all times and in all circumstances gold and silver remain money.  Their value is not subject to counter-party risk and accounting sorcery, unless it is fool’s gold or silver held in the GLD or SLV ETFs, and the metals will always buy something.  Gold is the risk-free asset and does not require fraudulently induced confidence because it generates real confidence.

CONCLUSION

Fractional reserve banking is embezzlement and the accounting rules have changed to protect those engaged in fraud.  The intrinsic value of the financial companies mentioned is almost impossible to accurately determine, may be nothing and therefore should be avoided.  Asset values are rapidly evaporating and the credit quality of borrowers is quickly deteriorating which will lead to more banks failing.  On 20 March 2009 FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said some very scary words, “Without additional revenue beyond the regular assessments, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero.

The Great Credit Contraction grinds on and holders of capital continue migrating down the liquidity pyramid seeking the safest and most liquid assets.  Your electronic digits representing illusory currency are not safe in any of the fractional reserve banks and when the FDIC fails there will more pandemonium.  With the FDIC begging to increase its line of credit from the Treasury from $30B to $500B the likely cure, whatever it may be, will inflict another laceration on the already mortally wounded FRN$ and further destroy wealth and hobble the economy.

During these relatively calm times for your businesses and daily transactions I recommend developing an alternative plan, and eventual substitute, to the current monetary system.  For reducing your risk and keeping your capital safe there are three main options:  (1) using gold and silver coins, (2) using the services of a full reserve institution, like GoldMoney, or (3) withdrawing the Federal Reserve Notes, putting them under the mattress and using cash as much as possible.

Disclosures:  Long physical gold and silver with no position in GS, JPM, BAC, C, CCB