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 NEVER spoke to the Fed buying bonds.You have the gall to ask what's the difference between you making up and concocting utter fabrications and lies, which you attribute to someone else who never stated anything of the kind vs. asking someone a question based upon what they actually said?
I NEVER stated that the Fed buys bonds to “boost the money supply.”
I NEVER stated from where the Fed “gets the money to boost the supply of money.”
I NEVER made any statement concerning “the general tax fund.”
I NEVER stated that “the Fed gets the money to increase its supply of money from the general tax fund.”You made each one of those statements up and attributed them to me. You LIED and continue to lie.
That you can't tell the difference between a lie and the truth is YOUR problem, not mine. And, now, as to your latest claim:
I NEVER SAID "the taxpayers are paying for the BSC deal" and neither did I say "the taxpayers are paying for the FOMC operations."
One of several rhetorical questions I posted, that should be addressed to Paulson, stated: "Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?"
Concerning how taxpayers will likely be footing the bill for this nifty transaction, that is exactly one of the questions to be asked during the April 3 hearings....by Grassley and Baucus apparently. Beyond that, there have been numerous posts speaking to that in FR previously, not just on this thread, but others. But, you already know that. Googling that on the internet would yield even more discussions concerning it elsewhere. Bloomberg addresses it as well (the latest is post #198).
You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a pathological liar and are beneath contempt.
But it could very well be that Bear had plenty of cash around. Lack of cash isn't what blew it up. It was lack of credit. If they had 10 billion of cash on hand and 40 billion of repo receivables due in less than a week that sounds pretty liquid, doesn't it?
It sounds like to me that the street all at once cut off Bear's credit.
What we don't know is how many repo liabilities they had coming due in less than a week, or Auction Rate Preferred's, or DVP's, etc, etc.
Do you realize what my post meant? You certainly didn't address it.
As concerns "the Treasury giving, or not giving, money to the Fed," seeing as how I never entered into any sort of discussions concerning that, nor previously EVER posted any articles and/or made comments thereafter concerning that, your "OMG" and "Congratulations" remarks are inappropriate and foolish, at best.
I'm sure you'll seek out whomever it is that may have made comment concerning the Treasury/theFed and money and let them know.
So do you still claim that the taxpayer is on the hook for FOMC operations? Do you? Inquiring minds would like to know.
It means you found a third party that knows that taxpayers do not fund the Federal Reserve. So taxpayers are not on the hook for the $29 billion investment in the portfolio that we've been discussing.
Grassley and Baucus.
Hearing on April 3, 2008.
Be there.
Great, now he’ll post another page (with red letters even) and not answer the question.
Cite the post where I ever stated that “taxpayers fund the Federal Reserve.”
As to how taxpayers may, indeed, have liability for the Bear Stearns transaction, the April 3, 2008 hearing may shed some light on that.
Tell ya what.....since you two think you’re gods and have godlike wisdom...you “must” have a direct line to Grassley/Baucus.
So.........call them up, “explain it all” to them, and have them cancel the hearings....cuz you both already “know it all.” Tell them they have no need to ask questions about these transactions. The taxpayers aren’t and could never be on the hook. You said so.
However, as it’s likely the hearing(s) will go forward, it can be justifiably believed that:
a) you didn’t call either Grassley or Baucus;
b) you don’t have a direct line to either one of them;
c) they didn’t know who the heck you were so refused your call;
d) if they took your call, they refused to believe what you had to say; or
e) they refused to solely rely upon your pronouncements, assurances and “godlike” wisdom that would allow them to cancel the hearings.
FOFLOL
Why don't you send them another list of your stupid questions? LOL!
Is that your way of admitting that you don’t have a direct line to the senators? or are you admitting that you are a nobody that the senators would even take your call, much less listen to what you have to say?
I already called Grassley and Baucus. They now have their instructions. <p
Okay. First, toddster and I have offices on the 10,000th floor of the Planetary Finance Center where we regularly meet with our cronies the Fed Chairman, the owners of all the major NY banks and the Jooooze. Aside from plotting to take over the interplanetary financial system we spend most of our time underwriting Kingdom of Heaven general obligation municipal bonds which we sell to global investors who don't know that they are only backed by the full faith and credit of angels and lost souls.
You may not recall, and I'm not surprised, but those "obvious" lies? Those are the same ones you refused to identify when I asked, with an offer to apologize if I had stated one of your positions incorrectly. I stated then, and I'll remind you now, you are so full of crap your eyes are brown.
You and your buddies are so full of it....it reeks.
Oh, really? Then I’ll ask you again now: what did I lie about? Spin that, you pansy.
What was your take on that stupid question, the one regarding the taxpayers footing the $29B? Was it his, or did he just post something he found on the 'net?
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.