Posted on 03/29/2008 1:26:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Two days ago, I wrote here on the widely-reported $30 billion loan that the Federal Reserve made as part of brokering the acquisition of the Bear Stearns Companies by JP Morgan Chase (the "St. Patrick's Day Massacre").
I now have much more information on what this deal is all about. I guessed quite wrong about the deal structure. The $30 billion loan is not a term repo as I originally thought. Nor is it likely to generate monetary losses for taxpayers. (In fact, the opposite is true.)
But it is something bold and different that's worth understanding. In fact, it's a major milestone event in the monetary and financial history of the United States.
Before I launch into this, let me set the context by reminding you why all this financial mumbo-jumbo is important: it's because of politics. Even before the full effects of the credit crisis make themselves felt, we're already deeply into a paroxysm of "the sky is falling! What is the government going to do about it?" I'll be posting as much as I can on this subject in the coming days and weeks, because there is at least as much danger to the real economy from a mad dash toward new regulations and Federal involvement, as there is from the financial-system disorders themselves.
Keep reading...Some of my information comes from this somewhat-cryptic press release by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and some from private sources.
During the critical days of March 14, 15, and 16, while Morgan was madly trying to discern the outlines of what they were being asked to buy, they identified a portfolio of assets that they were not willing to finance. They asked for the Fed's help in guaranteeing the value of the portfolio. Several accounts agree that Bear Stearns hurriedly marked this portfolio to market as of March 14, producing a valuation of $30 billion, and the Fed agreed to lend this money to Morgan as a condition of agreeing to the acquisition.
Relatedly, it appears that the Fed (both the Reserve Board in Washington and the New York Fed that directly participated in the negotiations) was involved heavily in setting the lowball price of $2/share offered to Bear Stearns shareholders. (In interviews, Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon will only say that "a lot of factors were involved.") The Fed knew very, very well that the Bear deal would be perceived as a government bailout of a Wall Street firm, so they went out of their way to ensure a smackdown of Bear's shareholders.
How the public sees this is one thing. (The mendacious news media have done nothing to dispel the impression that the fatcats made out like bandits.) Much more importantly, however, the Fed sent Wall Streeters a brutally clear warning not to expect that they will be made whole the next time they get into trouble. The sight of Jimmy Cayne going from near-billionaire to 60-millionaire in just over a year will keep a lot of plutocrats under control for a long time to come.
At any rate, the Fed's $30 billion loan was announced as part of the acquisition on the evening of March 16 in New York. Over the following week, everyone got a chance to catch his breath and re-examine the asset portfolio that was guaranteed by the loan. And as a result, the Fed restructured that transaction. They announced the restructuring on March 24, and this is where things get really interesting.
The New York Fed has created a new limited-liability company, and they hired BlackRock Financial Management to run it. (BlackRock, the division of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, not BlackStone, the publicly-owned private-equity firm.)
The New York Fed lent $29 billion to the new LLC, for a term of 10 years, which may be renewed at the Fed's option. Morgan put in $1 billion, in the form of a subordinated note. This is a key feature of the re-structured March 24 transaction, since in the original March 16 deal, the Fed was going to speak to the whole $30 billion.
The LLC will use the loan proceeds to acquire the Bear asset portfolio. And they plan to sell out the assets gradually as market conditions improve, over the next ten years or less.
Morgan's $1 billion note will take the first losses on the portfolio, if there are any. In essence, Morgan owns a 10-year call-spread on the deal, long at $29 billion and short at $30 billion. The first people to be paid out (after the LLC's operating expenses) will be the Fed. They get back their $29 billion, plus interest at the discount-window rate.
After the Fed get their money back with interest, Morgan will get back their $1 billion, plus interest at a rate equal to the Fed's discount rate plus 450 basis points (totalling 7% at the moment). That's the most that Morgan can make on the deal. Anything left after the principal and interest payments all goes to the Fed.
Depending on the liquidation value of the portfolio (which in turn depends on the original valuation and future market conditions), the New York Fed stands to make a significant amount of money here, well beyond their $29 billion investment.
Now there is still a big question mark: no one I've corresponded with knows for sure what the composition of the asset portfolio actually is. It appears to be a mixture of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, some with agency guarantees and some without.
And here is the key thing that makes this different from anything the Fed has ever done: the deal is essentially a trade. The New York Fed has funded the purchase of assets for a significant amount of time, in the full expectation that they will make a profit.
This is exactly the kind of deal that private actors like Bill Gross and Warren Buffett have been eyeing for months now. We do not know the specifics of the mark-to-market that Bear applied to the portfolio on March 14. It would be exceptionally interesting to know if they valued parts of it at 95 cents on the dollar, 70 cents, or somewhere else. Because the Fed's ratification of that valuation would put a floor under the MBS market as a whole, and potentially go a very long way toward resolving the overall credit crisis.
On the other hand, the New York Fed are very savvy traders. If they intend to make a profit with this vehicle, they don't necessarily want people to know their basis.
The transaction has been described by several of my correspondents as essentially a SIV ("structured investment vehicle"). This description strikes me as only superficially valid. A traditional SIV is dependent on continuous access to short-term repo funding, at low enough interest rates to finance the long-term paper held by the SIV. It therefore faces significant market and liquidity risk as interest rates move up and down.
I don't think the Fed's new LLC faces any risk that they will lose their short-term funding. (Even though there is mysterious language in the Fed's press release about an obligation of the LLC to pay the Fed interest at the current discount rate.) If anything, this is more like a hedge fund or a private equity fund than a SIV. I'd like to know if BlackRock got the standard two-and-twenty compensation structure for managing the vehicle.
To sum up, the New York Fed has entered the market for mortgage-backed securities as a direct participant, going far beyond their traditional role as a lender of last resort. This is a deeply significant and historic change, destined to have major repercussions. I've heard much apprehension and outright fear about the ultimate results, but so far, no one has been able to predict what they might be.
And in addition, many are questioning whether it needed to be done at all. In the days between March 16 and March 24, the Fed opened up its discount window to investment banks and broker-dealers. Some people believe the $30 billion probably could have been funded in the normal repo market after March 17, making the new 10-year LLC unnecessary. I'm not convinced of that.
Much of the general public is still going to react to this story as if the Fed has wantonly and illegally flushed $30 billion in tax money down the toilet. This sweet delusion will continue as long as the media can use it to sell fishwrap.
Forget about that. The real question, and the real danger, is: have the Fed embarked on an eyes-open strategy of direct participation in financial markets that will have extraordinary consequences?
We live in interesting times.
This is a VERY creative and interesting transaction bump.
Definitely worth a look - it got a wee bit technical at times, but was also straightforward enough for you to get a whiff. Fascinating.
Thanks for posting.
D
“Forget about that. The real question, and the real danger, is: have the Fed embarked on an eyes-open strategy of direct participation in financial markets that will have extraordinary consequences?”
I think the Fed’s participation will have ORDINARY consequences.
1: The dollar will continue to deteriorate in terms of purchasing power.
2: Money center banks will be rewarded for their profligacy and recklessness and will be given an essentially unregulated monopoly franchise into a reformulated financing and equity-issuance regime whose minutiae can only be guessed at from where we sit today.
3: (related to #1) The most responsible savers and homeowners will be severely punished by the market-wide deterioration in the valuations of their homes; the loss in interest-earning capacity on their savings, and the inevitable increase in their property taxes as counties and municipalities seek to make up for the losses in property tax receipts and the loss in purchasing power thereof.
It is not a loan at all. The Fed and J.P. Morgan are creating an investment fund, to be managed by BlackRock
...The Fed's ownership stake will be $29 billion, ostensibly in the form of loans at "the primary credit rate, which currently is 2.5 percent and fluctuates with the discount rate". But, that is largely meaningless. If the investment company's assets turn out to be worth less than the principal and interest due the Fed, then the Fed's loan won't be repaid. If its assets appreciate, J.P. Morgan gets paid out, and the rest belongs to the Fed. The only significance of the "interest rate" would be if, as the fund unwinds, asset values are high enough to make only a partial payment to J.P. Morgan. In this case, the interest rate would help determine the split between the Fed and JPM.Essentially, the Fed will own this investment fund and the Bear portfolio outright. JPM's position is basically a call option on the fund's assets at $29B plus time-value whose value is capped at $1B plus time-value. (JPM is long a call option and short the same option at a higher strike price.) The Fed can deny all it wants that it is considering purchasing mortgage-backed securities. That is the economic effect of this arrangement. The Fed is buying up mortgage-backed securities and other unspecified assets at "the value of the portfolio as marked to market by Bear Stearns on March 14, 2008."
But we already knew that.
...in precisely what sort of assets besides mortgage-backed securities [will] this fund hold. I think that MacroMan used the term "SIV" advisedly. The signal fact about SIVs is that, though they were formally off-balance sheet, limited-liability entities, in reality SIV sponsors bore downside risk beyond their legal obligations to the funds. Reputationally, the banks who sponsored these "independent" entities could not just let them fail.
I have a simple question, one to which I think taxpayers deserve a simple answer. Will this new "limited liability company" have contingent liabilities to any parties other than the Fed, J.P. Morgan, and BlackRock for ordinary management fees? Will its portfolio consist of any positions that would make the fund a counterparty, potentially with obligations to pay, not merely rights to receive, future cash?
If the answer is no, a plain statement of that would be nice. If the answer is yes, then don't count on the "limited liability" of this investment company to provide taxpayers much protection. It's strikes me as implausible that a fund backed by the Fed would default on obligations to third parties. We've had central banks touted as lenders of last resort, market-makers of last resort, and fools of last resort. We'd better think very carefully before letting the Fed become a derivatives counterparty of last resort. The very idea represents a subsidy to those we may not wish to subsidize. There's never been such a thing as a risk-free derivatives counterparty. Every holder of a derivatives position has an implicit option to declare bankruptcy and not pay should circumstances move decisively against them. Parties who retain an option to default while the other side of the contract is taken by someone who cannot are gaining something of value, something I'm not sure we want to give. Should counterparty risk move from a theoretical bogeyman to an actual crisis, the scale of sums at risk could be large, even on a portfolio whose current net value is only a few billion dollars, as those owing the Fed refuse to pay while Fed is obliged to cover "offsetting" positions from the public purse.
Actually, I am a bit relieved now. Thanks for post, it’s a good catch.
What happened to the “little guy bailing out the fatcat” meme?
WE ARE DOWNGRADING OUR RATING on BlackRock to Underperform from Neutral, while we are leaving our target price at $194 and our 2008/2009 earnings-per-share estimates constant at $8.75/$10.60.
Hmmm.
The New York Fed has explicitly stated that it was not involved in JP Morgan’s decision to offer Bear Stearns $2 per share in the original deal.
This makes me uneasy about the reliability of “blackhedd’s” unnamed sources.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPM, is a sitting director of the NY FED.
Question: Why did Bear Stearns' Chief Executive, Jimmy Cayne, get $50 million?
Grassely's interview with Kudlow last night. Grassely is the head of the Senate Finance Committee and will be grilling everyone involved in the JPM/BSC deal. MUST WATCH INTERVIEW.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=698522214&play=1
PAULSON DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEAL!!!
PAULSON NEEDS TO TAKE AN OATH THAT HE HAD NO INVOLVEMENT.
Questions to be asked:
Why would anyone directly involved in the sub-prime fiasco at BSC get any compensation at all?Why shouldn't they have to give back their compensation?
Why are they allowed to sell any stock at all?
Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
When?
For what?
Questions to be asked:
Why would anyone directly involved in the sub-prime fiasco at BSC get any compensation at all?
Why shouldn’t they have to give back their compensation?
Why are they allowed to sell any stock at all?
Why shouldn’t Bear Stearns’ Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
When?
For what?
lol. I know you like your head-in-sand position. Keep it there; we’d all be better off if more, like you, would only do that instead of actively ruining this country and our economy.
He owned 5.3 million shares. He sold them for $10.84 each. Do the math.
Why would anyone directly involved in the sub-prime fiasco at BSC get any compensation at all?
People who owned stock still own stock.
Why shouldn't they have to give back their compensation?
Give it back to who? Why?
Why are they allowed to sell any stock at all?
Because they own it.
Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
Rescind his stock? What does that even mean?
That’s not an answer. You’re claiming the taxpayers will be footing a bill for $29 billion. I’m simply asking for details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.