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.
I'll do better than that. Here's a link to your post #12.
From your post #12:
Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
The above sentence is claiming that the taxpayers would foot the bill. You were asked numerous times how that would work. You sniveled around and never did answer. So I asked you again.
And then from your post #98:
When you run out of material that can discredit the facts, you just outright lie, don’t you?
Pathetic.
Do you enjoy having me make you look like a fool?
Bear Stearns's chief executive, Alan Schwartz, and other top Bear executives huddled in all-day meetings at the firm's Madison Avenue headquarters, trying desperately to persuade skeptical potential suitors that the firm was worth buying for a price that would likely represent a steep discount to its book value, considered the truest measure of the financial health of a banking institution.
They were given a single Sunday to find a different buyer or accept the $2 offer. Do you think there might have been some pressure to agree? If you are forced to sign a document, does that constitute agreement in a general sense or agreement in name only?
Nic: Cite the post, and reprint it in its entirety, right here on this thread. You won't find it, because I never said that.
groanup: I'll do better than that. Here's a link to your post #12.
And what did my post #12 say? Oh, it said EXACTLY the following:
QUOTE:
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?
ENDQUOTE
groanup: The above sentence is claiming that the taxpayers would foot the bill. You were asked numerous times how that would work. You sniveled around and never did answer. So I asked you again.
One of the above sentences states that US taxpayers would be footing the bill for the bailout. It does NOT state that "they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund," right groanup? And you WON'T be getting an "explanation about the mechanics of that" because I NEVER SAID IT. And I did not "snivel around" as I CANNOT ANSWER what I never stated.
I repeat: When you run out of material that can discredit the facts, you just outright lie, don’t you? This is at least the SECOND TIME you have lied about and misrepresented what I have stated.
You...ARE....a liar and absolutely PATHETIC! Rudeboy, this is EXACTLY what I was talking to you about before. groanup makes things up out of whole cloth and attributes them to me. As I previously to you, it's one thing to honestly disagree with one another's positions, it's quite another to intentionally LIE about what someone states. And you wonder why you and your friends are viewed with absolute contempt.
I merely pointed that out. I didn't say anything about your family. geez.
You're the liar. I never stated anything concerning the above. YOU DID and attributed your own made up, whole cloth concoction, once again, to me.
Actually you are trying to snivel out again. Good luck.
It’s bad enough that you lie, it’s even worse that you refuse to apologize for it when you’ve been repeatedly caught.
You’re truly pathetic.
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.
Now does that sound like an explanation of the mechanics of the process of taxpayers bailing out BSC?
No. It's the sound of someone sniveling out of answering the question.
You are like that commercial where the guy thinks he can get a different result by calling on a different phone.
Face it nickie. You are got.
And you’re nothing but a liar.
You’re the type that things just because you make something up whole cloth and attribute it to someone else and falsely claim it’s a fact, that it’s true. You’re absolutely pathological....you run out of being able to attack a position and are so needy to be right that you lie about what other people state. As I said earlier, you’re pathetic.
You bet.
If you are forced to sign a document, does that constitute agreement in a general sense or agreement in name only?
Forced? More like, agree now or declare bankruptcy in 12 hours.
Are you gonna explain it? Or you gonna cry some more? LOL!
Explain what?
My exact question was as follows: “Why shouldn’t Bear Stearns’ Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?”
And I shall leave it at that.
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.