The October delinquent loan balance of $32.55 billion is a 504% increase from the $5.39 in October 2008. Additionally, RealPoint presents a scenario in which the delinquencies in June 2010 would hit $65 billion (8.3% total delinquency rate): a doubling from the most recent level and unprecedented pain for any form of CRE exposure.

In October 2009, the delinquent unpaid balance for CMBS increased slightly to $32.55 billion from $31.73 billion a month prior. Such delinquent unpaid balance is up an astounding 504% from one-year ago (when only $5.39 billion of delinquent balance was reported for October 2008), and is now over 14 times the low point of $2.21 billion in March 2007. An increase in four of five delinquent loan categories was noted in September, with a decline experienced in the 60-day bucket. Despite such decline, the distressed 90+-day, Foreclosure and REO categories grew in aggregate for the 23rd straight month – up by $2.36 billion (12%) from the previous month and over $18.77 billion (572%) in the past year (up from only $3.283 billion in October 2008).

Overall, following the correction of the GGP-sponsored loans in July and the average growth month-over-month, we now expect the delinquent unpaid CMBS balance to continue along its current trend and grow between $40 and $50 billion before the end of 2009 / first quarter of 2010. Based upon an updated trend analysis, we now project the delinquency percentage to grow between 5% and 6% through the first quarter of 2010 (potentially approaching and surpassing 7-8% under more heavily stressed scenarios through the mid-2010). This outlook is mostly due to the reporting of several large loans from recent vintage transactions that continue to show signs of stress and default, along with continued balloon maturity defaults from more seasoned transactions. In addition, while we maintain our negative outlook for both the retail and hotel sectors for the remainder of 2009 and into 2010, we are closely monitoring the negative trends surrounding several large struggling multifamily loans that have near-term default risk, and the lack of steady new issuance to offset the continued increases in delinquent unpaid balance.

In addition to this growth scenario, if we add-in the potential default of two very large Realpoint High Risk Loans under review (namely the now specially-serviced $3 billion Peter Cooper Village / Stuyvesant Town loan spread through multiple CMBS deals via a pari passu structure, and the specially-serviced $4.1 billion Extended Stay Hotel loan in the WBC07ESH pool), the delinquent unpaid balance would top $46 billion and reflect a delinquency percentage over 5.7% by December 2009. Carried through mid-2010, the delinquent unpaid balance would top $65 billion and reflect a delinquency percentage over 8.3% by June 2010.


Full RealPoint report

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/realpoint-october-cmbs-update-326-billion-october-delinquencies-504-yoy-increase-forecasts-6

none

Yen drops, Dollar, Euro surge. Yen - The Carry Currency, the sequel coming to a theater near you.


TOKYO (Dow Jones)–The Bank of Japan policy board will hold an unscheduled
monetary policy meeting from 0500 GMT “to discuss monetary control matters
based on recent economic and financial developments,” the central bank said
Tuesday.
BOJ Gov. Masaaki Shirakawa will also meet the press from 0730 GMT.


 


 

One assumes the narcolpetics at the ECB will be next with comparable “spotaneous announcements,” once they understand they are about to get crucified if the citizens of the Eurozone wake up and realize the US and Japan have both had their way with them all night any which way, after the most recent G20 roofie session.

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/developing-bank-japan-announces-special-monetary-policy-meeting-0500-gmt-likely-qe-announcem

none

The one moniker that may just stick (7 minutes into the clip). And seeing how the Chairman is having illicit (and excess liquidity lubricated) liaisons with the entire US middle class, yet is sufficiently covert about it that TMZ will never figure it out, it is about time that Senators do the right thing and prevent Bernanke’s reappointment, as well as make the Federal Reserve fully transparent, even as they set it on a path to its ultimate dissolution. With fiat monetary systems and the entire Keynesian experiment proven to be one uncontrollable fiasco, leading to exponentially increasing bubbles and bursts, the last thing Central Bank countries can afford now is delay.

 

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/kudlow-bernanke-tiger-woods-monetary-policy

none

And so economists begin their protest against the perpetuation of the farce that is US economics, and the madman in charge of the USS Titanic - Ben Bernanke. Nassim Taleb has decided to go into exile courtesy of the imminent reappointment of the man who not only caused the near destruction of the financial system, but with his actions has sealed the fate of America’s middle class. In a post titled “Good Bye! The reappointment of Bernanke is too much to bear” Taleb bids farewell and shares his disgust with the bullshit that the Wall Street - D.C. cabal has become, and the certain destruction that it is leading this once great country to. While we may or may not agree with Taleb’s expression of disappointment, it, together with ever more vocal demonstrations of anger at Bernanke’s second term by more and more prominent politicians, presents an increasing social problem for Obama, who has now bet the farm as well as taken out a CIT-funded 3rd lien on the success of Bernanke’s policies, as well as sacrificed the future of the US middle class so that Wall Street can enjoy another record bonus year.

From the HuffPo:

What I am seeing and hearing on the news — the reappointment of
Bernanke — is too hard for me to bear. I cannot believe that we, in
the 21st century, can accept living in such a society.
I am not blaming
Bernanke (he doesn’t even know he doesn’t understand how things work or
that the tools he uses are not empirical); it is the Senators
appointing him who are totally irresponsible
— as if we promoted every
doctor who caused malpractice. The world has never, never been as
fragile. Economics make homeopath and alternative healers look
empirical and scientific.

No news, no press, no Davos, no suit-and-tie fraudsters, no fools. I
need to withdraw as immediately as possible into the Platonic quiet of
my library, work on my next book, find solace in science and
philosophy, and mull the next step. I will also structure trades with
my Universa friends to bet on the next mistake by Bernanke, Summers,
and Geithner. I will only (briefly) emerge from my hiatus when the
publishers force me to do so upon the publication of the paperback
edition of The Black Swan

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nassim-taleb-protests-bernanke-reappointment-going-self-appointed-exile

none

by Marla Singer and Geoffrey Batt

Buried in the depths of page 26 of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (SIGTARP’s) November 17, 2009 report “Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties” hidden in footnotes 33 and 34 is something of a mystery.  It might be the beginning of an interconnected financial chain involving Dubai, the Federal Reserve, AIG, Basel I, Eastern Europe and even Switzerland and which, even if it doesn’t worry you, probably should.  Or it might be nothing at all.

Consider first “footnote 33,” that reads as follows:

The first Basel Accord, known as Basel I, was issued in 1988; it focused on the capital adequacy of financial institutions. The capital adequacy risk—the risk that a financial institution will be hurt by an unexpected loss—categorizes the assets of financial institution into five risk categories (0 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent). Banks that operate internationally are required to have a risk weight of 8 percent or less….

The original paragraph that references the footnote reads thus:

As of September 30, 2009, AIG had $172 billion in exposure to swaps in its foreign regulatory capital portfolio.  The portfolio contains swaps purchased by financial institutions, principally in Europe, to provide regulatory capital relief under Basel I. [note 33]  AIGFP’s COO informed SIGTARP in July 2009 that they expect that most of these swaps will be terminated by the end of the first quarter 2010 as most financial institutions complete their transition to Basel II.  Currently, financial institutions are required to hold a certain level of capital against their assets, and one way for a financial institution to reduce the amount of capital is to purchase swap protection on its assets.  However, new requirements decrease the level of capital required for such assets and, in most cases, there will be limited capital benefit to holding on to the existing swaps. Nonetheless, AIG warned in a June 29, 2009, SEC filing that if credit markets deteriorate, the company may recognize unrealized losses in AIGFP’s regulatory capital credit default swap portfolio. [note 34]  AIG could continue to be at risk if the swaps in its regulatory capital portfolio are not terminated by the end of first quarter 2010 as expected. (Emphasis added).

Taken together we read the thrust of this section to mean that a number of European banks, seeking to limit their regulatory capital requirements under Basel I (read: seeking to increase their leverage) bought swap protection on their assets from AIG.  These obligations still sit with AIG and, in the event credit markets sink materially, AIG is likely to take losses on these instruments.  Not just that but:

According to an AIG SEC filing, an ongoing concern for AIGFP is whether it will have to post more collateral if credit markets continue to deteriorate.  The amount of future collateral postings is partly a function of AIG’s credit ratings, which may be affected by any further decline in AIG’s financial condition. (Emphasis added).

Simply put, AIG might also have to post more collateral.  Moreover, though AIG initially expected most of these swaps to “be terminated by the end of the first quarter 2010 as most financial institutions complete their transition to Basel II,” we see from footnote 34 that:

Subsequent to the June filing, European regulators adjusted the implementation timing of Basel II, potentially affecting the holders of AIGFP’s regulatory capital swaps to hold beyond previously anticipated termination dates.

In other words, AIG is still on the hook- and hadn’t planned to be.

This raises a number of questions:

  1. If the European banks that bought swap protection from AIG are still relying on this protection to meet their capital requirements, and AIG might be unable to make good on the agreements, are these banks actually out of Basel I compliance as we type this?
  2. Are the banks still able to use swap protection to reduce their collateral requirements because of the implicit or explicit backing of AIG by the Federal Reserve?
  3. If this situation existed in September-November 2008, as it certainly appears to have, how exactly can the Federal Reserve claim in good faith that it lacked the leverage to negotiate with these banks from a position of strength?  (One assumes that many of the same names collecting payment from AIG were also AIG swap protection buyers of the sort mentioned in the SIGTARP report).  Failure to back up an insolvent AIG would have resulted in near-immediate Basel I non-compliance as the protection offered by these swaps, and on which these banks depended for their reduced capital requirements, evaporated- a near death sentence.
  4. Or had these banks somehow, and in the middle of the credit crisis, managed to boost their capital to levels that made the swaps unimportant?
  5. If so, why keep them on the books now, instead of unwinding them?
  6. Since it doesn’t seem likely that a teetering AIG could make good on these agreements without substantial assistance is the Fed is currently the ultimate backstop for AIG?
  7. Does this mean that the Fed is effectively underwriting these swap agreements?
  8. Will the Fed post collateral if deteriorating credit conditions at AIG (today’s -$11 billion news suddenly seems especially daunting if the potential insurance shortfall has an effect on credit ratings) or general credit market issues require it?  Or are we missing something significant?  By September 30, 2008 AIG had already posted $974 million in collateral for its “Foreign Regulatory Capital” portfolio.
  9. What if European banks are hit with more losses from, oh, we don’t know, say… Dubai?  Deleveraging, risk reduction and credit tightening would have an effect on LIBOR, the Eurobond market and, of course, Eastern Europe.  Might not that sort of contagion easily spread to, say, Switzerland, which enjoyed the other side of the carry trade for years by lending Swiss Franc like mad to any Eastern European mortgage borrower who could sign documents?
  10. Could it be that the Fed, once again, might have to bail out the world?

Or maybe we are just missing something obvious.

Attachment Size
Factors_Affecting_Efforts_to_Limit_Payments_to_AIG_Counterparties.pdf 2.2 MB

by Marla Singer via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-facing-margin-calls-european-banks

none

Submitted by John Daly of www.oilprice.com

Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Highlight Kazakhstan’s Uranium Potential

One bonus of the global recession is that it wiped a lot of incompetent hedge fund managers and energy speculators from the canyons of Wall Street. As the Gordon Gecko sycophants regroup and look for the next Big Thing, maximizing profit while minimizing risk, the landscape looks very different than it did a year ago. In such a climate, it is uranium, not oil and natural gas that would seem to have the brightest future for one simple, overriding capitalist principle – supply and demand.

Whatever agreements are reached at December’s global climate warming summit in Copenhagen, they can only boost uranium’s appeal, as the carbon footprint of a nuclear power station consists primarily of the carbon cost of mining uranium fuel, not a nuclear power plant (NPP)’s operation. According a University of Wisconsin study, NPPs only emit about 17 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt, little more than wind and geothermal power, the lowest sources. In contrast, coal has the highest carbon emissions at about 1,000 tons per megawatt. Accordingly, expect to see many nuclear power cheerleaders emerge in Copenhagen.

Consider – two years ago, London’s World Nuclear Association in May reported that worldwide, 256 reactors were either in the planning stage or under construction. Even Ukraine, site of the infamous 1986 Chernobyl disaster, has announced plans to build 22 new nuclear power stations, while the United States, site of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial meltdown accident, has 23 reactors being proposed. These new reactors would be in addition to the 439 nuclear power reactors worldwide in 31 countries generating 372,000 megawatts reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, an increase of 58 percent, all needing fuel.

According to the Wall Street Journal on November 29, “Iran announced a massive expansion of its nuclear program.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled in a cabinet meeting plans to build 10 more nuclear facilities for enriching uranium.”

The nuclear issue even impacted last year’s U.S. presidential election, as Republican nominee John McCain committed his administration, if elected, to begin planning for the eventual construction of 45 new nuclear power plants in the United States by 2030, twice the number currently on the drawing boards.

Europe is also interested in expanding its nuclear power industry, which represents 45 percent of the world’s currently operating nuclear facilities and 33 percent of new reactor construction. European nations currently operate 197 nuclear power plants generating 169,842 megawatts, and 12 European countries are planning or considering proposals for up to 67 additional reactors.

The story is the same in Asia. South Korea relies on nuclear energy to produce 45 percent of the country’s electricity and Japan is not far behind, relying on nuclear power for 30 percent of its energy needs.

Asia’s economic powerhouses China and India are interested in nuclear energy as well. India is increasingly interested in nuclear electrical power generation despite the fact that nuclear currently accounts for a paltry 3 percent to 4 percent of the country’s power needs; India has 19 planned and proposed nuclear power reactors.

Like India, China is a relative newcomer to nuclear power generation, deriving only 2.3 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, compared with the United States’ nearly 20 percent. Of China’s 11 current NPPs; the oldest, Qingshan-1, only came online in 1991. China’s Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense in its 11th Five-Year Plan for the Nuclear Industry said China will prospect for and develop indigenous uranium deposits in order to expand the nation’s ability to produce 40 gigawatts of nuclear power electrical generating capacity by 2020.

Further accelerating China’s move towards nuclear power, on 26 November Prime Minister Wen Jiabao announced his country’s plan to cut carbon-emissions intensity 40 to 45 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels. Carbon intensity is the emissions produced per unit of economic output, and in order to meet the target, China is apparently committing itself to implementing ambitious energy-efficiency and fuel-switching policies. Since most renewable and alternate non-fossil energy is in the power sector, this would mean a much higher percentage of China’s total electricity generation to meet these goals will need to come from non-fossil fuel sources, including renewables and nuclear energy.

To be on the safe side, China is also developing a national uranium reserve, to commence in 2010.

Despite Beijing’s ambitious attempts to expand uranium production in Xinjiang and elsewhere however, local sources will be insufficient to meet domestic needs despite country-wide prospecting. Analysts predict that within less than a decade China’s planned nuclear power reactors will consume 44 million pounds of uranium annually, as more than 16 provinces, regions and municipalities have announced intentions to build nuclear power plants within the next eight years — a total of 77 planned and proposed new reactors.

The revival of interest in nuclear power in the wake of record high oil prices and despite environmentalists’ opposition will prove a boon for uranium-producing nations. Current global production of uranium is approximately 40,000 tons annually. The math of the analysts quoted above on China’s needs means that without increased production, China alone would consume 55 percent of current world output within a decade.

Canada currently leads world production, with 25 percent of the world’s output, followed by Australia. Kazakhstan is currently the world’s third-biggest uranium miner. The three countries currently account for more than half of global uranium production. Other uranium mining nations include the United States, the Russian Federation, Portugal, Namibia and Niger, but those seeking reliable supplies must needs look to the “Big Three.”

Kazakhstan contains the world’s second-largest uranium reserves, estimated at 1.5 million tons. In 2006 it produced 5,279 tons of uranium, 21 percent more than in 2005.

But Kazakhstan has ambitious plans to massively boost its output of the silvery metal, as evidenced by this year’s production. Kazatomprom, the country’s national nuclear corporation, said in a press release last month that the country boosted uranium output an eye-watering 61 percent year-on-year in January-September to 9,535 tons, 3 percent above the government’s target for the period. Part of the reason for Kazakhtatomprom’s success was opening five new mines last year. According to Kazatomprom’s statistics, global uranium output in 2009 is projected to be 11,000 tons in Canada, 9,430 tons in Australia and 12,800 tons in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan is not only increasing its mine production, but moving to develop fuel fabrication facilities in an effort to move from mining to the higher value-added production of nuclear fuel fabrication.

Kazakhstan’s nuclear fuel issue will be of keen interest in Moscow, as it is currently a world leader in the technology. Despite its technological mastery, unlike its dominant position in the world’s oil and natural gas market, Russia’s footprint in the global uranium market remains relatively small. Russian state holding company Atomprom is the world’s seventh-largest holder of uranium ore reserves, the third-largest producer of nuclear fuel but only the world’s fifth-largest miner of uranium. Current Russian production is only 3,000 metric tons of uranium ore out of an annual requirement of 18,000 metric tons.

Russia’s oldest operational nuclear power facility, Novovoronezh-3, came online in 1971. The Russian Federation now operates 10 nuclear power plants with a total of 31 reaktor bol’shoi moshchnosti kanalnii reactor units, which supply approximately 16 percent of Russia’s energy needs. Except for the Bilbino Nuclear Power Plant in eastern Siberia, the other nine complexes are all located in European Russia. Putin’s administration is committed to expanding Russia’s nuclear energy use, noting in his 2007 annual address, “Over the entire Soviet period, 30 nuclear power plant units were built, but we plan to build 26 such units over the next 12 years, and to do so using the most advanced technology available.”

As with its oil industry, Kazakhstan has actively courted foreign investment for its mining operations. Kazakhstan has signed multiple contracts, including technology transfer agreements, with companies from Canada, Japan, France, and China. The world’s leading producer of uranium oxide, Canada’s Cameco, has a 60-percent share in Kazakhstan’s Inkai uranium mining operation, while the state atomic energy agency, Kazatomprom, the world’s fourth-largest producer, also has a stake in Inkai. Nor is the investment one way; Kazatomprom, flush with cash, has proposed purchasing a 10-percent stake in the U.S. company Westinghouse Electric.

While the price of uranium in the last several years has been volatile, the overall trend of the last decade has been strongly upwards. In 2001 a pound of uranium sold for between $5 and $10. Current prices in the spot uranium market have trended between $40 and $50 all year after having soared to $140 along with oil in 2007. The 2007 price resulted from the end of Russian dumping, surging apparent increases in demand plus massive liquidity via hedge funds and participation certificates, plus, combining with the difficulty of valuing uranium stocks. Despite these variables, given the projected construction and demand of NPP plants worldwide over the next decade, even a cashiered Wall Street analyst might be able to conclude that the price trend is likely to be upwards.

Rio Tinto’s listed uranium subsidiary, Energy Resources of Australia CEO Rob Atkinson, recently commented in The Australian that current relatively low uranium spot market prices combined the effects of the global recession are hampering mine development in a number of countries, setting the scene for a future uranium shortage, noting, “Given production issues that are going on across the world and the (longer-term) demand from power stations, spot prices seem a bit out of kilter at the moment.” Atkinson’s comments echoed an earlier report, as the Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets noted in a study, “Investing in Uranium Companies,” that a supply gap will exist in uranium after 2013. As
NPPs are licensed to run for 40 years, with many re-licensed for another 20 years, new NPPs will not be replacing existing plants, but only adding to demand.

Kazakhstan’s nuclear policies have won it plaudits in the international community, beginning when it voluntarily relinquished its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal. Now the IAEA is considering Kazakhstan’s proposal to host a nuclear fuel bank on its territory, a gesture that might yet cut the international Gordian knot of Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

In short, Kazakhstan is fast becoming a major player on the world nuclear stage, even in the diplomatic sphere and its potential to increase its share of the world’s uranium market is a certain bet over the next few years, as it has its influence in the global oil market. Its government’s relative stability and investor friendly climate are added pluses, but for those Wall Street Masters of the Universe disinclined to deal with President Nazarbayev’s regime, there are always profits to be made in Namibia and Niger.

And, of course, China, Japan, South Korea and India are only too willing to pick up the slack.

This article was written by John C.K. Daly of OilPrice.com who focus on Fossil Fuels, Alternative Energy, Metals, Oil Prices and Geopolitics. To find out more visit their website at:
http://www.oilprice.com

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-ambitions-highlight-kazakhstan%E2%80%99s-uranium-potential

none

Yet one more nail in the CRE coffin, and another reason why extend and pretend will be with us for years to come, lest investors wake up and find out just how screwed this country’s economy really is. In the meantime, IYR is going to the moon. A new McKinsey study looks at the CRE lending industry and finds some very disturbing things. Such as that even in the peak market years of 2006-2007 the European CRE finance industry did not cover its cost of capital!!! One can only imagine what the reality must be like currently in the dead zone that is European Commercial Real Estate financing (and also in those barbaric lands west of the Atlantic). Yet somehow the Euro keeps appreciating every day against the dollar. Let the Kool Aid flow.

More from McKinsey:

“Our research has produced two key findings. First, the industry as a
whole does not return its cost of capital (defined as equity) even in
the best of times, let alone over the business cycle.
Put another way,
the “profits” recorded in good times are in fact economic losses to
equity holders; worse, they fail to provide a cushion for the
significant losses that come in industry downturns.”

And with the reading-challenged equivalents across the Atlantic of CIT’s deal makers deciding what deals deserve financing, it is no wonder every dollar “invested” into CRE loans is a dollar burned.

“Because of these dynamics, we expect that even after the current crisis
has faded, the CRE finance industry will continue to destroy value.”

The McKinsey survey was based on eight large European banks while several
others granted supplementary data. Collectively, McKinsey
estimates that these two groups comprise about 40 percent of the CRE
loans outstanding on balance sheets across Europe.
The survey spanned
2006 and 2007, the final two years of the property boom, providing a
clear picture of how the industry performs in good years. God help these banks if the McKinsey study were extended two years past the sunset of the 2007 “best year” for CRE. Of course, the toxic sludge is still on the balance sheets. However, courtesy of even more loose regulatory requirements than in the US, these don’t have to be disclosed until the impairment is practically 100% and a 100% loss follows. In other words, a binary environment where everything is either tip top or Armageddon. One hopes the switch to the latter does not occur in our lifetimes.

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mckinsey-study-finds-european-cre-financing-industry-was-never-really-profitable

none

More taxpayer money well spent. Then again, the Federal Reserve discovering that the nation’s balance sheet is the next repository of worthless and unmanageable residential mortgages (gasp) courtesy of the Fed’s own actions would have been worth the price of admission.

 

Attachment Size
FHA Cleveland Fed.pdf 556.82 KB

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cleveland-fed-claims-fha-not-next-subprime-parallel-study-finds-ice-not-really-cold

none

Certainly you expected substantially the same thing… no?

Dubai, 30 November 2009: Dubai World (“Dubai World”) and its subsidiaries (the “Group”) would like to update their lenders on recent developments relating to their debt obligations.

Following a detailed review of the Group’s liquidity and capital structure, Dubai World has concluded that it should immediately consider alternatives in respect of the debt obligations of certain entities within the Group.

The proposed restructuring process will only relate to Dubai World and certain of its subsidiaries including; Nakheel World and Limitless World. The process will not include Infinity World Holding, Istithmar World and Ports & Free Zone World (which includes DP World, Economic Zones World, P&O Ferries and Jebel Ali Free Zone), all of which are on a stable financial footing.

The total value of debt carried by the companies subject to the restructuring process amounts to approximately US$26 billion, of which approximately US$6 billion relates to the Nakheel sukuk.

Read it all here.

Attachment Size
DP_World_Statement.pdf 78.73 KB

by Marla Singer via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dubai-world-press-release

none

Don’t say the market is unkind to Goldman. First the firm’s employees are about to rake in all time record bonuses. Then, courtesy of of a rocking bear market rally, top-tick Goldman is about to get the hell out of dodge in another GS Capital Partners LBO, Adesa, basically a vehicle auction firm, which the firm bought in conjunction with Kelso in 2006. And who gets to pocket the underwriting fee? Why, Goldman. No way is the squid going to let any capital leave the firm. As for the company: prepare to own a 10x EV/EBITDA Craigslist knock off which will spew $100 million in free cash flow on a good year (and with consumers waiting for Cash for Clunkers 2 thru 100, don’t expect a whole lot of car auction activity any time soon).

In an amended S-1 filed earlier, KAR Holdings (the HoldCo for Adesa) disclosed the details of its upcoming IPO. The company, with Goldman as lead left underwriter (and with upcoming Buy recommendations to follow the IPO courtesy of 10 co-managers to secure an even better price for Goldman to dump remaining shares), will sell 23 million shares between $15 and $17/share.

More details from the red’s Use of Proceeds:

We intend to use $276.8 million of the net proceeds from this offering to repay and/or repurchase amounts under one or more of our senior subordinated notes, fixed senior notes and floating senior notes, which may include a tender offer for cash or the redemption of notes pursuant to the optional redemption provisions described under “Description of Certain Indebtedness — Senior Notes — Optional Redemption” and “Description of Certain Indebtedness — Senior Subordinated Notes — Optional Redemption.”

We also intend to use $64.1 million of the net proceeds from this offering, together with approximately $200 million of cash on hand, to repay $250 million of outstanding borrowings under our senior secured term loan, which matures on October 19, 2013, pay $3.6 million of senior secured term loan amendment fees and pay $10.5 million of termination fees to our Equity Sponsors in connection with the termination of our financial advisory agreements with each of them. (more cha-ching for Goldman).

The firm reports $383.7 million of LTM EBITDA. Pro Forma debt will be $2 billion and the market cap at the mid point of the offering range will be another $2 billion (based on 130 million shares), for roughly $4 billion in EV. So 10x+ EV/EBITDA for what is a essentially commodity service. Throw in $120 million in CapEx and $150 million in interest expense and you have a barely positive $100 million FCF company, garnering a ludicrous #Ref FCF multiple. Sounds like another brilliant idea out of 85 Broad. The cost: sponsors put in $1.1 billion in a mix of cash and equity, acquiring the company for $2.7 billion. Not a bad return for three years.

Congratulations Goldman on pulling another fast one out of where the sun don’t shine. Better hope that IPO window doesn’t close again. Oh wait, you are the market - how could we have doubted you.

by Tyler Durden via zero hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-prepares-ipo-its-adesa-car-auction-portfolio-company-and-pocket-nice-3-year-return

none

Categories

Blogroll

Most commented

  • None found