Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More on The Federal Reserve's St. Patrick's Day Massacre (The Bear Stearns Takeover)
RedState ^ | Mar. 29, 2008 7:16am | blackhedd

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: bailout; bearstearns; bernanke; fed; jpmorgan; notbailout; stpatricksmassacre; wallstreet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-277 next last
To: palmer
Thanks for clarifying. Your original statement made no sense.
81 posted on 03/29/2008 4:30:27 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (NAFTA opponents are an odd coalition of the no-deodorant Left and the toothless-and-tinfoil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Private debt was privately owned, now it is an LLC that the government created and gave $30B to. If you believe that the debt is NOT government owned, that would mean that the government gave the LLC to some private owners. Do you believe that has happened?


82 posted on 03/29/2008 4:31:03 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Do you believe that has happened?

I'll wait for facts rather than gossiping like maids at the market.

83 posted on 03/29/2008 4:33:06 PM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I had not heard about the LLC that the Fed created until today

Even that sounds a little dicey on their part.

84 posted on 03/29/2008 4:33:25 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Are their documents that must be publicly filed for this LLC, the way that e.g. corporations must make a filing to the state gov’t they are incorporated in? Would be interesting to see that filing.


85 posted on 03/29/2008 4:40:34 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ikka
Are their documents that must be publicly filed for this LLC, the way that e.g. corporations must make a filing to the state gov’t they are incorporated in? Would be interesting to see that filing.

And the date of the filing.

86 posted on 03/29/2008 4:44:54 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779

Let’s say you are owed some money but are having trouble collecting. I go to my friend’s house and he prints up some counterfeit money which I pay him a few cents per dollar and give (sorry, “loan”) that money to a brand new LLC that I create in Delaware for the sole purpose of buying your IOU which I “plan to sell sometime in the next 10 years or something like that”. I think that’s basically what has happened.


87 posted on 03/29/2008 4:47:28 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I go to my friend’s house and he prints up some counterfeit money

You don't know that the Fed is going to use new money to fund this transaction. Do you?

88 posted on 03/29/2008 4:50:07 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (NAFTA opponents are an odd coalition of the no-deodorant Left and the toothless-and-tinfoil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Petronski; nicmarlo
The Fed buys bonds every time they want to boost the money supply.

According to nic they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund. Right nic? I don't believe we ever heard your explanation about the mechanics of that.

89 posted on 03/29/2008 4:50:36 PM PDT by groanup (After 20 years someone finally made money in gold. Now it's "I told you so".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Let’s say you are owed some money but are having trouble collecting. I go to my friend’s house and he prints up some counterfeit money which I pay him a few cents per dollar and give (sorry, “loan”) that money to a brand new LLC that I create in Delaware for the sole purpose of buying your IOU which I “plan to sell sometime in the next 10 years or something like that”. I think that’s basically what has happened.

I think the pertinent question here is is the taxpayer off the hook for this?

90 posted on 03/29/2008 4:50:48 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Counterfeit new money...
91 posted on 03/29/2008 4:51:46 PM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: groanup; nicmarlo
According to nic they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund.

No, they have the Treasury print up FRNs.

92 posted on 03/29/2008 4:53:41 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: groanup
He won't explain anything. I'm sure he'll post a dozen quotes from somebody else to cloud the issue.
93 posted on 03/29/2008 4:54:07 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (NAFTA opponents are an odd coalition of the no-deodorant Left and the toothless-and-tinfoil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

No, but the Fed money is fungible.


94 posted on 03/29/2008 4:54:30 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

The fact that an LLC was created was also linked to on my post #4; a fact is anything but "gossip."

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."

That link, in my post #4 above, links directly to the fed, which states, in part:

Summary of Terms and Conditions Regarding the JPMorgan Chase Facility
March 24, 2008

The New York Fed loan and the JPMorgan Chase subordinated note will be made to a Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”) established for the purpose of holding the Bear Stearns assets.

Forbes 3/24/08:

The loan will be against a portfolio of Bear Stearns assets valued at 30 bln usd billion as of March 14. The New York Fed is forming a limited liability company (LLC) to take control of the assets in return for a 29 bln usd loan to JP Morgan Chase (JPMC).

Bloggingstocks:

The Fed's $29 billion Bear Stearns equity bailout

To do the deal, a Delaware-based limited liability company (LLC) will receive the $30 billion worth of Bear MBSs. The Fed will "lend" $29 billion to that company, which will pass all the money along to JPMorgan. JPMorgan will contribute a $1 billion loan to the LLC and BlackRock ­Financial Management will pay back the LLC's loans by gradually liquidating the assets. The Fed gets paid back fully before JPMorgan gets back anything on its loan. And if, after JPMorgan gets paid back, there's money left, the Fed gets it all.

But that last part is what makes the Fed's $29 billion an equity investment rather than a loan.


95 posted on 03/29/2008 4:55:29 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: palmer
So they could be using some of their current portfolio to fund it.
96 posted on 03/29/2008 4:55:38 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (NAFTA opponents are an odd coalition of the no-deodorant Left and the toothless-and-tinfoil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: groanup
According to nic they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund. Right nic? I don't believe we ever heard your explanation about the mechanics of that.

Cite the post, and reprint it in its entirety, right here on this thread. You won't find it, because I never said that.

97 posted on 03/29/2008 4:58:18 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: groanup

When you run out of material that can discredit the facts, you just outright lie, don’t you?

Pathetic.


98 posted on 03/29/2008 5:00:02 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
So they could be using some of their current portfolio to fund it.

Outside of trickery, the Fed is putting everyone in this country deeper in debt everyday. You will have to explain this magical portfolio that you seem to believe in.

99 posted on 03/29/2008 5:05:45 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
So they could be using some of their current portfolio to fund it.

If you funded it, would it matter whether you paid cash, put it on your credit card? (we'll leave out the part about having your friend print up the cash)

100 posted on 03/29/2008 5:07:54 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson