At their peak in February 2007, U.S. and foreign-owned companies sold automobiles in America at an annual pace of 16.6 million units.

Last month, their sales pace plunged to 9.3 million, a decline of
44 percent (including the best performers like Toyota and Honda).

Again, as with housing, we saw a tiny uptick in the prior month, hailed by high officials as a “sign” of improvement. Yet, as with housing, it was weaker than all prior “signs of a turn” over the past 26 months – each of which was followed by a sharper plunge.

Any lights at the end to Detroit’s dark tunnel? Only those of three speeding freight trains:

• The Chrysler bankruptcy, despite all the talk of a “quick and easy” procedure, is not only frightening U.S. car buyers away from the Chrysler brand, it’s also scaring them from other U.S. and foreign makers. And it’s not only hurting auto dealers and parts suppliers, but also smacking auto lenders. Meanwhile …
  
  
• GMAC, the nation’s largest auto lender, is already in its death throes, with the government now estimating it could suffer additional losses of a whopping $9.2 billion over the next two years. Will the Obama administration bail it out? Perhaps. But it would still have to downsize its operations, throwing another monkey wrench into General Motors’ sales. Meanwhile …
  
  
• General Motors is now sinking even more rapidly toward bankruptcy than it was just a few months ago. According to last week’s New York Times column, G.M., Leaking Cash, Faces Bigger Chance of Bankruptcy …

“Even after receiving $15.4 billion in federal loans, General Motors is once again on the brink of financial collapse.

“The automaker’s first-quarter earnings released Thursday showed that G.M. was losing more money and sales than it was in late December, when the government began its bailout.

“With its cash reserves down to the bare minimum and its revenue plunging, G.M. seems more certain each day to be heading toward a bankruptcy filing. …

“The company’s chief financial officer, Ray Young, called the drop … ‘a staggering number,’ and said consumers were showing increasing concern about G.M. products because of the potential for bankruptcy.”

General Motors’ CFO added: “Once you start losing revenues, you get yourself into a vicious cycle from which you cannot recover.”

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same vicious cycle I’ve been warning about for many moons – falling revenues prompting mass layoffs, and mass layoffs driving down revenues.

Storm #4
Biggest Decline in Consumer
Credit Ever Recorded!

Any economist counting on the consumer to get things going again had better go back for some more Rorschach tests …

… because you don’t need a therapist to interpret the image depicted in my chart below. It shows very clearly how the nation’s lenders are dumping consumers and making a mad dash for the exits:

In the third quarter of 2007, banks dished out $44 billion in net new loans on credit cards, autos, and other consumer credit (excluding mortgages).

Then, just 12 months later, in the third quarter of 2008, that giant credit machine collapsed to a meager $8.7 billion, a decline of 80 percent!

But the collapse didn’t end there. In last year’s fourth quarter, not only did new credit disappear, but lenders actually pulled out of the consumer credit market to the tune of $19.5 billion.

And they did it AGAIN in the first quarter of this year, pulling out another $12.2 billion.

It is the biggest collapse in consumer credit ever recorded.

Now do you see why I’m recommending a shrink for any economist fixated on a recovery?

They know how important credit is. They know that few Americans have the savings to splurge on consumer goods. And they’re tired of knowing that a recovery is virtually impossible without credit.

And yet here we are, with the biggest-ever collapse in consumer credit – and they’re still searching for the “signs”!

Storm #5
Big Banks!

Whether the government lets big banks fail or not, the impact on the economy is similar: A massive contraction of bank loans and credit, sabotaging attempts to revive credit flows and stimulate the economy.

Reason: These banks must build capital quickly, and the only realistic way to do so is by cutting back on their lending.

The official stress test results released Thursday on 19 U.S. bank holding companies were supposed to help determine exactly how much capital they’ll need, and the total came to $75 billion.

That’s no small amount. But the stress tests will go down in history as the world’s most elaborate effort to paint lipstick on a pig.

To show you why, first, let me provide our analysis based on data from TheStreet.com Ratings, the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the banks’ first-quarter financial statements. Then I’ll show you why I believe the official results grossly underestimate how much capital the banks will need and how much pressure they’ll be under to slash lending.

We find that …

• Seven institutions – JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group, GMAC LLC, SunTrust Banks, Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp – are at risk of failure and may have to cut back lending dramatically to stay alive.
  
  
• Eight institutions – Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial Services Group, US Bancorp, BB&T Corp., Regions Financial Corp., American Express Co., and Keycorp – are borderline, meaning they could be at risk of failure with worsening economic or financial conditions and will also have to cut back on lending.
  
  
• Only four institutions – MetLife, Bank of NY Mellon Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., and State Street Corp. – appear to have adequate capital to withstand worsening conditions. But even they may voluntarily cut back their lending in an attempt to maintain their current financial health.

Moreover, of the $11.6 trillion in assets held by the 19 institutions, those likely to cut back dramatically represent $6.56 trillion, or 56.5 percent, of the assets; while borderline institutions hold $4 trillion, or 34.7 percent.

Only $1 trillion – just 8.8 percent – of the assets are held by institutions with adequate capital, based on our analysis.

In contrast, the government is trying to persuade us that most have plenty of capital … the rest can easily raise it … and none will have to slash lending in a way that would sabotage the prospects for an economic recovery.

So what explains this vast discrepancy between the official conclusions and ours?

The simple answer: Three unmistakable deceptions in the government’s stress tests …

First deception: The assumptions.

To come up with estimates of future losses, the government assumed what they call “a more adverse” scenario. But their more adverse scenario is actually less adverse than the current reality!

Hard to believe? Then just look at their own numbers in the chart the Fed published recently:

• Their “more adverse” scenario is predicated on the presumption that the GDP will contract no more than 3.3 percent this year. But in actuality, the GDP is already contracting at an annual pace of 6.1 percent!
  
  
• Their “more adverse” scenario also assumes that unemployment will average 8.9 percent this year. But unemployment has already reached 8.9 percent in April, and no one – not even economists fixated on recovery signs – is anticipating anything but a further rise.

Either they’re delusional. Or they’re cheating at solitaire.

Second deception: No mention of systemic risk!

The banking regulators have published two major white papers on the stress tests – “Design and Implementation” plus “Overview of Results.” However, in these papers, they have failed to even mention the greatest risk of all: systemic risk.

This is the risk that …

• A few key players in highly leveraged instruments like derivatives could default on their trades.
  
  
• These defaults could set off a series of failures, with the most severe impacts felt by banks that hold the largest share of the derivatives in the country.

This is the giant risk that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote about in its landmark 1994 study, “Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System,” warning of “a chain reaction of market withdrawals, possible firm failures, and a systemic crisis.”

This is the giant risk that triggered the collapse of Bear Sterns, the failure of Lehman Brothers, and the $180 billion bailout of America’s largest insurer, AIG.

It’s the giant risk that AIG executives themselves wrote about in their recent memorandum, “AIG: Is The Risk Systemic?,” warning of a “cascading impact on a number of life insurers already weakened by credit losses” … and “a chain reaction of enormous proportion.”

It’s the giant risk that the International Monetary Fund is most concerned about when it warns of another $3 trillion in global losses due to the banking crisis.

It’s the giant risk that prompted former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to literally drop to his knees last September, begging Congress for $700 billion in bailout funds for the banking industry.

Since that day, the U.S. economy has suffered the worst back-to-back GDP declines in over 50 years, burning the nation’s fuse even closer to a blow-up.

And yet, suddenly, in a massive undertaking that was supposed to accurately evaluate the banks’ exposure to these dangers, it’s also the giant risk that has been scrupulously scrubbed from 59 pages of official white papers, a half dozen press releases, plus multiple public pronouncements – all about the stress tests, all without a single mention of systemic risk.

This omission is both deliberate and unforgivable.

It means the stress tests have failed to fairly evaluate the credit exposure of each bank to defaults by their trading partners. And it means the tests are creating a false sense of security for investors and the public that can only lead to greater mistrust, more loss of confidence, even panic.

The omission is especially misleading for large banks that dominate the derivatives market … would be at ground zero in any meltdown … and would therefore be among the first to suffer massive losses.

The prime example: The OCC reports that, at year-end 2008, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) held $87.4 trillion in notional value derivatives, including $8.4 trillion in credit default swaps.

(To see for yourself, click here to download the OCC’s latest report; scroll down to page 22; and check out the top line “JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.” Note: The next to the last column “Total Credit Derivatives” is 99 percent made up of credit default swaps, according to the OCC.)

Why is this such a big problem? For several reasons:

• Although it’s cut back a bit, JPM still has 43.6 percent of all the derivatives held by all U.S. commercial banks, or $17 trillion more than Bank of America and Citibank combined. Among the 19 bank holding companies in the stress tests, that puts JPM closer to ground zero than any other bank.
  
  
• It’s well known that credit default swaps are the highest-risk sector of the derivatives market. And yet, in this sector, JPM has 52.8 percent of the total held by all U.S. commercial banks, or nearly double the total held by BofA and Citi. This puts JPM even closer to ground zero.

• JPM execs insist they’re smart and know how to handle their risks very neatly. But if that were the case, why did they suffer a whopping $2.5 billion loss in their credit default swaps in the fourth quarter? (OCC, page 27, Table 7, line 1, last column.)
  
  
• The OCC also reports that, for each dollar of capital, JPM still has $3.82 in total credit exposure. Mind you, that’s JPM’s exposure to just one kind of risk (defaults by trading partners) in just one kind of instrument (derivatives). In addition, JPM is also assuming market risks in derivatives plus a series of risks in its other investing and lending operations. (OCC, page 13, table at bottom of page, line 1, last column.)
  
  
• Despite all this, in their “more adverse” scenario, the banking regulators estimate JPMorgan Chase’s total “counterparty and trading losses” will not exceed $16.7 billion, a fraction of the true potential losses in a financial crisis.

With the fatal omission of systemic risk from their analysis, the government concludes that JPMorgan Chase is in good shape and does not need any additional capital.

The same omission leads to a similar conclusion for Goldman Sachs, despite the fact that Goldman has over $10 in total credit exposure per dollar of capital, or nearly triple the credit risk of JPMorgan Chase.

The only realistic conclusion: Both these institutions will need huge amounts of capital, driving them to cut back massively on new lending.

Systemic risk is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it’s there. Everyone understands the dangers. But they’re afraid of the answers. So they dare not ask the questions.

The fundamental answer, though, is clear: Systemic risk is what drove the financial markets into a deep freeze seven months ago; and it was that storm which helped drive the economy into a tailspin.

Today, systemic risk is not gone. If anything, it’s far worse.

Third Deception: Improper influence.

In its white paper, the Federal Reserve admits that the stress tests were based, to a large extent, on each bank’s self-evaluation – not only for loan loss estimates that can be derived from past data, but also for the future performance of trading accounts, which can be far more subjective.

Moreover, each institution was allowed to appeal the final results, and several banks strenuously negotiated for more favorable grades. They even got regulators to accept their projections of future revenues, treating those future revenues almost as if they were cash in the kitty.

In contrast, we never permit the companies we evaluate to influence our evaluation process or our results. To do so would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. But much like conflicted Wall Street rating agencies, that’s essentially what the bank regulators have done – from start to finish.

Put simply, the stress tests were too easy; the banks took the exams home with cheat sheets; and if they didn’t like their final grade, they could get the examiners to give them a better one.

Yet despite all these fudge factors, the government still estimates these institutions could suffer $600 billion in additional losses over the next two years.

And this is being portrayed as another “sign” of recovery?!

My view: We will have a recovery someday. But only AFTER we honestly recognize the grave mistakes of the past and own up to the hard sacrifices still ahead.

Until that happens, I’m staying the course, investing my own money in a way that protects me from the dangers and gives me an opportunity to profit from the next decline … which, by the way, promises to be the biggest of all.

If you want to follow along with me, check your inbox for an alert that I’ll soon be sending you personally – with the sender name “Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.”

Good luck and God bless!

Martin

This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com.

Consumer confidence is a difficult thing to measure, but the latest Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) from Nationwide Building Society, which is based on a survey of consumer opinion, rates consumer confidence at its lowest in at least four years (the index did not exist before 2004).

The evidence is there: budget supermarkets are boasting their highest profits in years, sales of new cars have fallen 21% in a year, and more established High Street chains such as John Lewis and BHS have announced significant falls in profits. It would seem that consumers are becoming increasingly eager to save money where possible.

Consumer confidence and loan availabity

Traditionally, consumer confidence has primarily been a concern for providers of consumer goods and services. Banks and building societies, meanwhile, can sometimes benefit from reduced consumer confidence: when customers do not spend their money, it stays in their bank accounts, which provides funds for financial institutions to do business with. It also encourages taking out loans to finance more expensive purchases, which earns the lender interest.

However, with the uncertainty surrounding the financial sector at the moment, this situation could change. With a number of banks merging and others reporting large falls in profits, the old cliché of keeping savings under a mattress might not be such an exaggeration.

However, a spokesperson for Think Money said that savings are still very important – not only for financial security, but for the good of their lenders too. “Consumer confidence is important to lenders, because they too rely on continuous business,” she said. “If lots of customers withdraw their savings in a short period of time, the banks could be left with very little money to do anything with, meaning they would have little money left to fund loans and other forms of credit. In a worst-case scenario, they could even fail.

“Our advice to consumers is not to panic and to try to carry on as normal. Take confidence from the fact that lenders are still offering loans to customers, which they simply wouldn’t do if the money wasn’t there.

“The Government’s £50bn rescue plan, combined with the recent half-point base rate drop, will only serve to improve lenders’ ability to offer loans – it may just take a little longer to find the right deal.”

Free Guest post by loan and mortgage specialists www.ThinkMoney.com

You might also enjoy our article on “6 Ways to destroy our need for Bank loans.”

Another reason to engage in People to People lending and borrowing

Last Friday I received yet ANOTHER set of cash advance checks to use for “special vacations or emergencies.” They keep telling me that “because of my strong financial history” they are offering me this great deal of quick cash at “only” 14.99%. Only 14.99%? I have kindly called them several times explaining that I didn’t have any use for their money anymore, and that they could stop sending these checks for security purposes. Each assures me that I will receive no more mailings, and, for good measure, attempts to convince me that I should do a balance transfer or increase my credit line. Uh, yeah, go ahead and increase it, so you look even more ridiculous with a $0 balance on a $40,000 credit line.

My biggest beef with these guys is not that they’re out to make a buck. Where I get angry is that every customer service representative seems to solve the problem, but I find out later they were unsuccessful. It is just too large a risk to have checks coming in the mail that could be used to throw me right back into debt. I’ve already stopped nearly all credit card offers using OptOutPreScreen.com. Why can’t they follow suit and just stop?

Has anybody else had any luck in stopping these mailings?

In any case, the exercise caused me to start thinking about the various ways individuals are ripped off. Although this is certainly not an extensive list, it’s not bad for a mini-brainstorming session.

1. Shred all documents containing personal information before discarding

This was a tough habit for me to start. For one thing, I bought a shredder that only cut up to 5 pages at one time and overheated after a few minutes of shredding. I recommend not buying the lesser quality versions if possible. That being said, I don’t recommend going without a shredder just because you can’t afford a good one.

2. Look Closely at the Links in Emails Requesting Personal Information

This protects you agains the type of fraud referred to as phishing. One way to check for false links it to hover over the link and read where it will take you. My wife often receives phishing emails from EBay and Paypal with the link addresses pointing to a much different website. The best way to combat phishing in my opinion is to use another method of making the required change. For instance, if you receive an email from Paypal telling you to update your credit card information, go to their website and make the change there.

3. Make a Copy of Everything Cancellable in Your Wallet or Purse

This is straightforward. Make a copy of the front and back of any credit card and other identity documents you carry. Also, if you don’t need a particular credit card or identity document, don’t carry it.

One piece of advice that may help: don’t be like my college buddy who kept the copies IN HIS WALLET. His wallet was stolen along with the copies leaving him to struggle through the credit card cancellation process.

4. Never Give Personal Information Over the Phone Unless You Made the Call

This protects you agains the type of fraud typically referred to as pretexting. Ask the caller who they are associated with and if you can have their phone number to call back. If they mention a company, look them up online and call them on a number you know is correct. If you don’t recognize the company name and they give you a phone number, do a White Pages lookup to confirm their story. Although in this instance it’s very unlikely I would give them any personal information at all.

5. Monitor Your Credit Report Regularly

Thanks to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), you can now download free copies of your credit report from the three major credit bureaus once a year. This is a good way to stay on top of unauthorized credit lines. Keep in mind that the information is typically 30, 60, or even 90+ days old depending on how often your creditors update the bureaus.

You can request your free credit reports at AnnualCreditReport.com.

6. Remove Your Name from the Credit Bureau Marketing Lists

Removing your name from these lists will reduce the amount of unsolicited credit card offers you receive. Unscrupulous people can use your preapproval offers to open credit lines in your name.

To opt out of the lists for all three credit bureaus, visit OptOutPrescreen.com or call 1-888-5OPTOUT (1-888-567-8688.)

7. Don’t Put Your Social Security Number on Your Checks

This sounds obvious, but you would be amazed at the number of people who still have their social security number printed on their checks. Some banks don’t even allow social security numbers on their checks anymore because of the large liability associated with it.

8. Look for the Lock Symbol on Your Browser When Entering Personal Information on the Internet

Most Internet veterans know to look for this lock symbol, but people like my grandfather may not. Depending on your browser, it can be on the bottom status bar, next to the address bar, or some other place in between. Even though I know to look for this symbol, I am often guilty of making a quick purchase without taking a second to stop and look for it.

As I mentioned earlier, this is certainly not a complete list. If you have additional suggestions for protecting yourself from identity theft and fraud, please leave a comment.

If you are interested in a more in-depth look at fighting identity theft, I recommend FightIdentityTheft.com which really goes into detail on this topic.