Showing posts with label Barclay's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barclay's. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2009

let's not forget that the FSA deserves a hefty share of the blame as well.

From The Economics Of Contempt:

"The FSA Deserves Some Blame for Lehman Too

ECB official Lorenzo Bini Smaghi responded to Paul Krugman's recent contention that Europe's response to the financial crisis has been inadequate. One of Smaghi's arguments, though, unfairly places all the blame for allowing Lehman to fail on the US:
[Krugman's argument] doesn’t explain how the most fateful decision of all – the decision to allow a systemically important bank to fail in the midst of a financial crisis – was taken by a single decision-maker, while the 16 euro area governments have managed to avoid making such a large mistake.
Whoa, let's remember what actually happened. The Fed and the Treasury successfully brokered a private-sector rescue for Lehman, in which Barclays would buy all of Lehman except for $40 billion of commercial real estate assets, which would be acquired by a consortium of major banks. Since Barclays is a British bank, the deal required approval from the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA). On Sunday morning, though, the FSA unexpectedly rejected the deal. As William Cohan recounted:
The Barclays deal required the blessing of the Financial Services Authority, in London - the UK equivalent of the SEC. So Paulson spoke with his UK counterpart, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the FSA. He then summoned McDade, Lehman's president, to the New York Fed and told him at around 9:45 a.m., "Deal's off. The FSA has turned it down." At roughly 10 o'clock, Paulson and Geithner briefed the bankers at the Fed.
So while the Fed and the Treasury undoubtedly made a mistake in letting Lehman fail, let's not forget that the FSA deserves a hefty share of the blame as well.


Me:

Don said...

Here's a little more on that from Bloomberg on Nov. 10th:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aMQJV3iJ5M8c&refer=home

"Barclays Deal

One of the attendees, Merrill CEO John A. Thain, 53, took stock of his own company's best interests and initiated merger talks with Bank of America. Lewis had concluded on Friday that he couldn't do a deal with Lehman without government backing, which he thought would be forthcoming. After Paulson made it clear to Lewis that a government role wasn't in the cards, the Bank of America CEO pulled his team out of the Lehman talks.

That left only Barclays, since Nomura told Lehman it was unable to move fast enough. Fuld, who rarely left his office that weekend -- working the phones, fielding calls from deputies, talking to Barclays executives -- thought he had a deal Saturday night. Barclays was willing to buy Lehman for about $5 a share if it could leave behind the most troublesome assets, the ones Lehman had proposed spinning off into a separate company as well as some others Barclays didn't want.

Sunday morning brought a false dawn. Geithner and Paulson had talked a syndicate of banks into backstopping the creation of a new entity that would take over $55 billion to $60 billion of Lehman's problem assets, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations.

No Lifeline

Everyone was basking in what seemed a done deal until word came at 11:30 a.m. in New York that the U.K.'s FSA, which regulates that country's banks, refused to waive normal shareholder-approval requirements or to allow Barclays to guarantee Lehman's debts until obtaining that approval. The reason, people familiar with the decision say, was that Barclays lacked sufficient capital to absorb Lehman.

``The only reason it didn't happen,'' Leigh Bruce, a Barclays spokesman said today, ``is that there was no guarantee from the U.S. government, and a technical stock-exchange rule required prior shareholder approval for us to make a similar guarantee ourselves. We didn't have that approval, so it wasn't possible for us to do the deal. No U.K. bank could have done it. It was a technical rule that could not be overcome.''

Don the libertarian Democrat

March 20, 2009 8:38 PM

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

"We are not taking the post down, but this disclaimer stands: viewer beware."

A controversial but revealing post on Alphaville:

"
Bank picture du jour( DOESN'T KEDROSKY HAVE THIS PATENTED? )

A caveat - We have received a slew of complaints in the comments and more than one email about this picture. One reader notes, for instance, that the graphic “just happens to make JPM look like the best bank by far. Represented correctly by area, things are not quite so clear cut between JPM and santander/HSBC.”

Points well taken. We are not taking the post down, but this disclaimer stands: viewer beware.Hat Tip JP Morgan (Click to enlarge).

Banks: Market Cap

Monday, January 19, 2009

Following Lehman’s filing on Sept. 15, “there was a spiral of confidence disappearing

More on the Lehman Debacle. From Bloomberg:

"By Jennifer Ryan

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s rescue failed when U.S. officials couldn’t find a bank to provide the same trading guarantees that Bear Stearns Cos. received, the New York Federal Reserve’s general counsel said.

“Plan A was to prepare a Bear Stearns-style rescue, plan B was the alternative case,” Thomas Baxter, who attended the discussions to save the bank, told a conference in London today. “The problem with plan A was the problem with guarantees” and “if you don’t have that guarantee and a strong hand, market confidence in a weaker member is going to continue to erode.”

Lehman’s failure in September led to the biggest bankruptcy filing in history and prompted an escalation in the financial crisis which threatened to undermine banks around the world. An agreement by U.K.-based Barclays Plc to buy Lehman was blocked at the last minute by British regulators.( WOW )

“The facts are often that people conclude that we let Lehman fail, and that factual predicate is not accurate, that the government let Lehman fail,” Baxter said. “The problem we encountered on Sunday, Sept. 14, is Barclays wasn’t in a position to give a similar guarantee of the trading obligations of Lehman” as JPMorgan Chase & Co. gave to Bear.

Bank of America Corp and Barclays were the only two potential suitors for Lehman when officials met before the bankruptcy filing on Sept. 15., said Baxter, speaking at a conference organized by the Financial Markets Group of the London School of Economics.

‘Cast of Characters’

“When we started into Lehman weekend on Friday, Sept. 12, we gathered at the New York Fed,” he said. “The cast of characters were the secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, my president, Tim Geithner, the chairman of the SEC,” Christopher Cox, and the heads of as many as 14 financial institutions.

“It soon became clear that Bank of America was not so much interested in Lehman, but something else. That was Merrill.” Baxter said. “So we lost Bank of America. That left Barclays.”

The group of bankers and officials was trying to repeat the Bear rescue on Lehman, except that this time officials told lenders that “unlike with Bear, you all are going to finance the assets that are taken to facilitate the acquisition. That was plan A,” Baxter said.

“The problem with plan A was not an absence of financing” because the bankers in the room did agree on a deal, Baxter said. “They had the money and they were willing to put it out.”

‘More Technical’

The hitch was “much more technical,” Baxter said.

“The problem for plan A relates to, what do you do in the period between the announcement of a merger and the actual closing of the merger?” Baxter said. He said plan A failed because Barclays couldn’t guarantee the trading obligations.

Barclays agreed to acquire Lehman after a syndicate of banks consented to backstop a new entity that would take over $55 billion to $60 billion of Lehman’s troubled assets, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The deal fell apart when the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority refused to sign off on the Barclays purchase that day and U.S. officials refused to take further steps to save the deal.( GOOD WORK )

The New York Fed meeting then turned to discuss plan B, Baxter said.

“The best option was to put the parent of Lehman into bankruptcy, to continue an operation as broker-dealer at least in the U.S., and to continue a broker-dealer operation through Federal Reserve liquidity,” Baxter said. “That happened.”

‘Big Time’ Loans

In the week after the bankruptcy filing, the Fed loaned “big time” to keep the broker-dealer in business, with funds totaling as much as $50 billion, he said. Barclays then returned to the table and bought the division.

“If you go back and study the way we did Bear Stearns, you’ll see the importance of the guarantees( I AGREE ),” Baxter said.

Following Lehman’s filing on Sept. 15, “there was a spiral of confidence disappearing( A CALLING RUN, DEBT-DEFLATION SPIRAL ),” Tony Lomas, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers who is administering Lehman’s U.K. bankruptcy, told the same conference today. He previously worked on the aftermath of Enron Corp.’s financial collapse.

“We had a call Saturday night, we were appointed Sunday lunchtime,” Lomas said. “We had half a day to prepare. In the Enron insolvency, we had a two-week window to talk with management on what they would do if support from the parent stopped.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer Ryan in London at Jryan13@bloomberg.net"

This was a terrible mistake.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

"to stem the remorseless contraction of credit that's caused our awful recession.

Peston on BBC:

"
A bank insurer, not a toxic bank

I don't know why the Government hasn't knocked on the head the idea that it's working on the creation of a bad or toxic bank that would buy our biggest banks' dodgy loans and investments.

What I expect it to announce on Monday (although the timetable could slip a day or so) is the creation of the mother-of-all bank insurance schemes.( GOVERNMENT MUST STEP IN AND GUARANTEE EVERYTHING IN A CALLING RUN. )

By the way, the Treasury is also considering making an offer to Lloyds/HBOS and RBS to convert the expensive preference shares they've sold to the Government into ordinary shares.( GOOD )

If this happens, I would expect RBS to say yes and Lloyds to say no. And the conversion would see the state's holding in Royal Bank rising from 57.9 per cent to around 70 per cent, or a good step nearer full nationalisation( GOOD ) (see below for more on this).

But back to this insurance scheme to give banks and their investors a bit more certainty( A GUARANTEE ) about the losses they would face as the recession undermines the ability of many borrowers to repay their debts.

Our biggest banks would identify their bad( CORRECT ) loans and foolish( CORRECT ) investments. And they would then pay a fee to a new state-backed insurer to protect themselves from losses over a certain level on these stinky assets. ( A PROPOSAL PUT FORWARD IN THE US AS WELL. )

But the banks would retain these bad assets on their balance sheets. They would not be transferred to a new toxic bank. We as taxpayers wouldn't own the stinky loans - though we would be liable for losses on them over a certain level.( TRUE )

Why the urgency of doing this?

Well in just a few weeks we'll see results for 2008 from our biggest banks. As I've already pointed out, Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS will announce unprecedented, horrible losses.

And the HBOS losses would represent a massive drain on its new owner, Lloyds TSB.

There's a fear that unless the Government has developed some kind of safety net for them by then( A FULL GUARANTEE ), there could be an alarming loss of confidence in the banking system of the sort we witnessed in September and October.( A CALLING RUN )

So next week we'll get the announcement that just such a safety net, in the form of the insurance scheme for toxic loans, is in the process of being designed and built.

In a way, it can be seen as a way of getting capital into RBS and Lloyds/HBOS in particular without fully nationalising them.( THAT'S IT )

That said, the scheme will be open to all( IT HAS TO BE TO STOP THE CALLING RUN ) our very biggest banks. So Barclays too could insure away future losses on certain of its loans and investments if that suited it - although on Friday night it insisted that it had made stonking profits of well over £5.3bn in 2008.

However I don't expect a long and detailed statement on the institutional mechanism by which we as taxpayers will pick up part of the bill for the longest banking blow-out in history.

Nor do I expect, as this stage, the Government to put a number on the likely cost to all of us as taxpayers of putting a floor under banks' losses - although the potential liability would run to tens of billions.( TRUE )

Of course it's entirely possible( TRUE ) that if the new state insurer values the assets properly( THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM ), taxpayers could end up over the years of the scheme with a profit.

But it seems unlikely that this will be a very popular policy. Readers of this blog have repeatedly asked why we as taxpayers should bail out the banks for the consequences of their greed and recklessness( BECAUSE THE CALLING RUN HAS LED TO A PROACTIVITY RUN ). The question I'm always asked is whatever happened to the old-fashioned idea that we should pay for our mistakes?( NATIONALIZING THEM WOULD DO THIS.)

For those working around the clock this weekend at the Treasury, in Downing Street, at the Bank of England and at the Financial Services Authority, the priority is to restore the strength of the banking and financial systems, to stem the remorseless( MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY ADVOCATE LETTING THIS GO ON! ) contraction of credit( A CALLING RUN, WHERE CAPITAL MUST BE HOARDED FOR CALLS. ) that's caused our awful recession.

In that context, the Treasury and UK Financial Investments (the institution created by the Treasury to manage its investments in banks) have been preparing to make an offer to Lloyds/HBOS and Royal Bank, to convert £9bn of their preference shares (owned by the Treasury) into ordinary shares.

The reason for doing this would be to remove from them the heavy financial burden of paying the 12 per cent dividend of the preference shares.

In the case of RBS for example, the dividend represents an annual cash outflow of £600m and for Lloyds/HBOS the outflow is £480m.

In theory, if the two banks didn't have to pay this dividend they could lend £27bn more every year (because under FSA guidelines, if the £1080m of dividends were retained by the banks as equity capital, the banks would be able to lend a multiple of that core Tier 1 capital).

My strong sense is that RBS would love to convert the prefs, which it regards as costly debt, into ordinary shares - even though that would see it owned 70 per cent or so by the state.

However Lloyds TSB is less keen, because it's 43.4 per cent owned by the public sector and doesn't want to see state-ownership rising above 50 per cent, which would be the result of converting the prefs.

It will be interesting to see whether Lloyds' shareholders would agree that its worth paying out £480m of cash each year to taxpayers to prevent that creeping nationalisation of the bank.

Anyway, as readers of this blog know, there'll be plenty of other initiatives announced next week by the Treasury, most of which can be seen as deploying taxpayers' resources to encourage lending.( THE ONLY WAY )

One of these will be an extension of the timetable for Northern Rock, the fully nationalised mortgage bank, to repay what it's borrowed from the Bank of England and the Treasury. This would put less pressure on the Rock to shrink the amount that it is prepared to lend.

Which at a time when the problem for the economy is a shortage of credit sounds a bit like an outbreak of common sense at the Treasury."

Sorry Bob, this is the only way. Frankly, nationalization would be better. I'm surprised that you don't see that.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

"a new type of security tied to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s temporary program to guarantee bank debt, a move that could aid small banks."

From the WSJ:

"By Jessica Holzer

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Barclays Capital is preparing to sell a new type of security tied to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s temporary program to guarantee( THAT'S THE POINT ) bank debt, a move that could aid small banks.

The securities firm believes the product will boost small banks' participation in the program by allowing them to issue FDIC-backed debt more cheaply, according to people briefed on the matter by Barclays executives.

Other securities firms are preparing to launch similar products, those people said. The vehicles would be among the first developed by the private sector in response to one of the temporary federal measures to contain the financial crisis.

To shore up confidence in the banking system, the FDIC in October said it would guarantee( YES ) for a fee certain newly issued senior unsecured debt of U.S. banks and savings institutions. About $220 billion in debt so far has been issued under the program, according to an FDIC spokeswoman.

Large banks such as JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) are among the biggest issuers. However, smaller banks, which typically rely on home loan bank advances and deposits to fund themselves, are still trying to gauge whether it makes sense to participate in the program, according to Jim Reber, president and chief executive of ICBA Securities, the broker-dealer subsidiary of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

It is often costly for such banks to tap the bond market because they can't issue debt in large scale. Investors typically require higher yields on debt that is sold in small blocks because it is more difficult to resell( ILLIQUID ).

Barclays, the investment-banking arm of U.K.-based Barclays PLC (BCS), is proposing to pool FDIC-guaranteed debt issued by U.S. banks and sell securities backed by the debt to investors, according to Reber and others familiar with the matter. The pooled debt likely would carry a single yield and maturity date.

Barclays intends to target the same investors who buy debt issued by Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), Reber said. The firm's executives have spoken with officials of the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America to gauge banks' interest in the product.

"Barclays' premise is that it will allow some small issuers to issue at large-scale yields," said Reber, who was briefed by Barclays executives about their idea.

Reber said that he told the executives that he wasn't sure the product will lure enough small banks to participate in the program. Many are shying away from the FDIC program because of the 1% annual fee on issuance of debt with maturities of a year or more. The bulk of the more than 8,300 FDIC-insured banks and thrifts are small institutions.

A spokesman for Barclays Capital declined to comment.

Barclays and other firms seeking to lauch products tied to the FDIC debt guarantee are likely to roll them soon because all debt under program must be issued by June 30, 2009. The FDIC guarantee will phase out for debt that matures after June 30, 2012.

The FDIC will only guarantee up to 125% of the value of senior unsecured debt outstanding as of Sept. 30, 2008 or, in cases where a firm has no such debt, 2% of its liabilities.

Firms will need to file disclosure documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission before they can begin selling such securities.

-Jessica Holzer, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9228; jessica.holzer@dowjones.com"

Saturday, December 27, 2008

"The crisis is getting worse and worse in Zimbabwe and only SADC can pull the plug on the Zanu-PF government. "

From the Guardian:

"
Zimbabwe's neighbours must act

Forget the bombast, David Miliband. Concentrate on getting southern Africa to pull the plug on Robert Mugabe's regime

If the British government wants to help Zimbabwe, it would be better if the foreign secretary, David Miliband, refrained from making bombastic pronouncements and instead focused on petitioning legitimate political players in the region to act against Robert Mugabe. Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries are the ones who can cut off the supply line of luxury goods to the Zimbabwean regime just in time for Christmas, not Britain.

Of course, Britain as the former colonial power in Zimbabwe lacks the moral authority to intervene directly. It is too easy for Mugabe to respond by characterising Miliband's soundbites as hypocritical interventions, mainly concerned with preserving the land rights of the residual white diaspora.

By portraying Blair, and now Brown and Miliband, as machinating "racists", "imperialists" and "former settlers", Mugabe has been able to increase the level of solidarity and warmth felt towards the Zanu-PF government by a few degrees. Because nobody likes an interfering former colonial power.

In contrast to the British government, however, the British people have a magnificent record of fighting against injustice in southern Africa through the anti-apartheid movement. And one of the strategies of anti-apartheid that worked was to target those companies that sustained the apartheid regime.

Two of those companies were Barclays Bank and Anglo American. And just to prove that they are truly colour blind when it comes to supporting oppressive regimes, the same companies are also currently shoring up the Zanu-PF dictatorship.

Barclays provides the government with the lines of credit it needs and foreign earnings from mining provide the Zanu-PF elite with enough foreign currency to live comfortably. In June this year, British-based Anglo-American announced it would be investing £200m in its Unki platinum mine.

In another echo of former times, it was Peter Hain, one of the leaders of the anti-apartheid movement, who immediately spoke out against Anglo American's decision to make a major investment in Zimbabwe. These two companies should now be boycotted by the British people and targeted for their support of Mugabe in the same way that they were boycotted and targeted in the time of anti-apartheid.( HEAR HEAR )

But ultimately, of course, the solution to the problem is in the hands of the SADC countries. In fact, there are very few reasons for the governments of the other SADC countries to support Mugabe. There were always deep differences between them and the Mugabe government.

It had to be explained to me that Mugabe did not "go bad" after independence; he was always a conniving apparatchik scheming and murdering his way to the top.( TRUE )

Wilfred Mhanda has chronicled how he did this. Mhanda describes the reaction of African leaders to Mugabe seizing control of Zanu from Ndabaningi Sithole in 1975: "Robert Mugabe and his followers had staged a coup against Sithole while they were all in prison. Smith released Mugabe, who then led a Zanu delegation to meet with the leaders of the frontline states - Agostino Neto, Julius Nyerere, Samora Machel and Kenneth Kaunda. They were surprised and horrified to see Mugabe leading the delegation and asked how on earth he could stage a coup inside an enemy prison against the properly elected leader of the movement. They suspected the prison authorities had helped Mugabe."

Mugabe was even put under house arrest by Samora Machel, the president of Mozambique in 1977. Unlike the other African leaders, Mugabe was not a socialist, a nationalist or even a brave military commander. He was a tribalist, who we now know was responsible for the Gukurahundi massacre of an estimated 20,000 in Matabeleland.

The crisis is getting worse and worse in Zimbabwe and only SADC can pull the plug on the Zanu-PF government. It should put aside false loyalties and do so, and as soon as possible."

That he has remained in power is an international disgrace.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

"In a swap, parties agree to exchange interest payments, usually a fixed payment for one that varies based on an index."

A story on Bloomberg with lots of interesting points:

"By Michael McDonald and Michael Quint

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Six years after embarking on an effort to lower borrowing costs using derivatives, New York is watching those savings evaporate.

The state( THAT'S CORRECT, THE GOVERNMENT BOUGHT SWAPS ) says it paid bankrupt( NOW YOU KNOW WHY THIS WAS A DISASTER. IT TRIGGERED A WHOLE INFINITY OF PEOPLE HAVING TO GET CASH. IT'S LIKE A BANK RUN ) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and other Wall Street banks at least $75.9 million since March to end interest-rate swap contracts that were supposed to lock in below-market rates. That money and the costs of issuing new debt to replace bonds linked to swaps( IN THIS ENVIRONMENT ) gone awry are eroding the $207 million in savings New York budget officials say the derivatives produced since 2002.

New York isn’t alone. Lehman’s bankruptcy filing on Sept. 15 triggered the termination of similar contracts across the country, forcing state and local governments and other borrowers in the $2.67 trillion municipal-debt market to buy out the agreements( PAY MONEY BACK ). They suddenly find themselves making unexpected payments at a time when their revenue is already under pressure from the worst recession since World War II ( A TERRIBLE TIME TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH CASH ).

“People are fixing problems right now,” said Nat Singer, managing partner at Swap Financial Group in South Orange, New Jersey, and the former head of municipal derivatives at Bear Stearns Cos. The number of new deals has shrunk to a “fraction” of the amount a year ago as issuers unwind failed swaps( BECAUSE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ) with Lehman, Singer said.

Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, and a school district in Pennsylvania vowed never to use swaps again after losing money. The added costs in New York come as the state faces a record $15.4 billion budget deficit over the coming 15 months.

Lowering Costs

In a swap, parties agree to exchange interest payments, usually a fixed payment for one that varies based on an index. Borrowers may benefit by using swaps to lower interest expenses or lock in rates for future bond sales."

Here's a definition:

"An exchange of interest payments on a specific principal amount. This is a counterparty agreement, and so can be standardized to the requirements of the parties involved. An interest rate swap usually involves just two parties, but occasionally involves more. Often, an interest rate swap involves exchanging a fixed amount per payment period for a payment that is not fixed (the floating side of the swap would usually be linked to another interest rate, often the LIBOR). In an interest rate swap, the principal amount is never exchanged, it is just a notional principal amount. Also, on a payment date, it is normally the case that only the difference between the two payment amounts is turned over to the party that is entitled to it, as opposed to exchanging the full interest amounts. Thus, an interest rate swap usually involves very little cash outlay."

And an example
:

Copyright ®2004 International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
Alfa Corp Strong
Financial
Floating rate payment
(3-month Libor)
Fixed rate payment
(5% s.a.)
Terms:
Fixed rate payer: Alfa Corp
Fixed rate: 5 percent, semiannual
Floating rate payer: Strong Financial Corp
Floating rate: 3-month USD Libor
Notional amount: US$ 100 million
Maturity: 5 years
Interest Rate Swap example
• Alfa Corp agrees to pay 5.0% of $100 million on a semiannual basis to
Strong Financial for the next five years
– That is, Alfa will pay 2.5% of $100 million, or $2.5 million, twice a year
• Strong Financial agrees to pay 3-month Libor (as a percent of the notional
amount) on a quarterly basis to Alfa Corp for the next five years
– That is, Strong will pay the 3-month Libor rate, divided by four and multiplied
by the notional amount, four times per year
• Example: If 3-month Libor is 2.4% on a reset date, Strong will be obligated to pay
2.4%/4 = 0.6% of the notional amount, or $600,000.
– Typically, the first floating rate payment is determined on the trade date
• In practice, the above fractions used to determine payment obligations
could differ according to the actual number of days in a period
– Example: If there are 91 days in the relevant quarter and market convention is to
use a 360-day year, the floating rate payment obligation in the above example
will be (91/360) × 2.4% × $100,000,000 = $606,666.67.
A fixed-for-floating interest rate swap is often referred to as a “plain vanilla” swap because it is the most commonly encountered structure"

"New York agencies used them to lower the cost of almost $7 billion in bonds sold between 2002 and 2005, according to an Oct. 30 report from the budget division. The average fixed rate the agencies agreed to pay Lehman and other banks was 3.78 percent, compared with 4.5 percent if they had sold conventional tax-exempt debt( THEY GOT A LOAN AT LOWER INTEREST ), officials calculated.

The state failed to comprehend the extent of the risks( TOO MUCH ) involved in entering into the long-term contracts, which often last more than 20 years, the report said. They included the likelihood an investment bank would go out of business, triggering the termination of the agreement ( THAT'S IT ).

930,000 Contracts

“One of the main risks with swaps, which is that a sudden bankruptcy of a counterparty could terminate a swap in unfavorable mark-to-market conditions( CURRENT PRICES ), was not effectively addressed in the existing laws and agreements,” the budget division wrote in its annual report.

A budget-division spokesman, Matt Anderson, said in an e- mail that “given the current volatility in the market, we currently don’t anticipate entering into further swap agreements at this time.”

Lehman had about 930,000 derivatives( OH MY ) contracts of all types when it collapsed, according to bankruptcy filings. About 30,000 remain open( THAT'S NOT BAD WORK ), Robert Lemons, a Weil, Gotshal & Manges lawyer representing Lehman, said last week. The contracts are worth billions of dollars to Lehman’s creditors, though their exact value isn’t clear, he said.

The cost of ending a contract depends on current interest rates. Since New York and other issuers agreed to pay a fixed rate to Lehman when borrowing costs were higher, they must pay the bank to end the deals( THAT'S IN THE CONTRACT ). The three-month dollar London interbank offered rate, or Libor, upon which many agreements are based has tumbled to 1.466 percent from 5.5725 percent in September 2007.

Swaps Approval

Because they are private agreements, no comprehensive data exist on how many municipalities( GOVERNMENTS ) are involved in the almost $400 trillion interest-rate derivatives market or the total paid to exit the contracts. Derivatives are contracts whose value is tied to assets including stocks, bonds, commodities and currencies, or events such as changes in interest rates or the weather( TRUE ).

New York passed a law in 2002 expanding the ability of state agencies and authorities to use swaps. It was signed by then-Governor George Pataki, a Republican. New Jersey, California and other states also use derivatives in their public financing.

Bentley University entered into swaps with Lehman and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. on $85 million of debt between 2003 and 2006. The school also had to pay a fee to end the swaps when Lehman collapsed, based on its contracts with the bank.

Upfront Cash

“It’s going to take awhile for people to get comfortable again, if ever,” said Paul Clemente, the chief financial officer at Bentley, who declined to disclose the amount of the fee. “As far as the future for interest-rate swaps, for me there is no future.”

Some borrowers also use swaps as a way to generate upfront cash, an attractive feature as the recession eats into municipal finances. At least 41 states and the District of Columbia face a combined budget shortfall of $42 billion this fiscal year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, a non- partisan budget and tax analysis group, said Dec. 23. The estimate on Oct. 10 was $8.9 billion.

The Butler Area School District in Pennsylvania decided in August to pay JPMorgan Chase & Co. $5.2 million to back out of such a deal, more than seven times what it was paid to enter the agreement, rather than risk losing even more money over the 18- year contract. The district superintendent, Edward Fink, said he now thinks it’s inappropriate for school systems to dabble in such trades( NOT COMPETENT ), even though they were explicitly backed by the General Assembly in 2003.

Valuing Risk

JPMorgan said in September it would stop selling derivatives to states and local governments amid federal probes into financial advisers and investment bankers paying public officials for a role in swap agreements( COLLUSION ).

Borrowers “never put a value on the risks associated with the swaps( THE LENDERS SHOULD HAVE MADE IT PLAIN. THIS IS AT LEAST NEGLIGENCE ),” said Joseph Fichera, president of New York-based Saber Partners LLC, a financial adviser to corporate and public sector borrowers. They only estimated the savings investment bankers and advisers were telling them they would get, he said.

The use of swaps began faltering in February when the market for auction-rate securities collapsed. States, local governments and nonprofits sold about $166 billion of the debt, and as much as 85 percent of that was then swapped to fixed rates, according to Fichera.

Bond Insurers

The collapse of the auction-rate market left issuers such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey paying weekly or monthly rates of up to 20 percent. The swap agreements failed to adjust to swings in the underlying variable rates, leaving New York and others exposed to higher borrowing costs.

Interest rates on other types of municipal variable-rate debt also rose this year as investors boycotted bonds backed by MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group Inc. and other insurers that lost their AAA ratings because of their expansion into subprime- linked credit markets.

Some borrowers entered into new swaps after Lehman’s collapse, agreeing to pay higher than market rates in exchange for upfront payments to help cover the termination fees they owed Lehman( INTERESTING ), according to Swap Financial’s Singer. London-based Barclays Plc, which acquired Lehman’s brokerage, is among the banks bidding on this business, he said.

“The combined message from all of that is you cannot have complete confidence in your counterparty,” said Milton Wakschlag, a municipal finance lawyer in Chicago at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. “People will be taking a hard look at some of the conventions of the marketplace” after they finish cleaning up from Lehman’s bankruptcy."

I consider this negligence if the borrowers were not clearly explained the risk. You also see Fraud and Collusion in this post. Point taken.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

"Andrew Ross Sorkin seems to have caught Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke out in a bit of a fib"

Given that I believe that the Lehman Decision introduced investors and markets to the notion that the bailouts would be selective and uncertain, and caused an upsurge in queasiness about the competence of the government's ability to handle this crisis, which, given that it was the Bush Administration, was probably not rock solid to begin with, I find this Felix Salmon post disturbing:

"Andrew Ross Sorkin seems to have caught Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke out in a bit of a fib. They couldn't bailout Lehman, said first Paulson and then Bernanke, because Lehman didn't have the collateral needed to put up against a Fed loan.

But it turns out that the Fed did lend Lehman money: a whopping $87 billion, to be precise, on the Monday it collapsed. And the official (if anonymously-sourced) explanation makes almost zero sense:

People involved in the process said that the Fed only lent the money as part of "an orderly wind-down," which would have been different from lending money to an ongoing, or in this case, insolvent concern.

What seems to have happened is that while Lehman Brothers Holdings, the listed company, declared bankruptcy, its brokerage subsidiary, LBI New York, did not. The Fed lent some emergency money to LBI New York, and then that liability was transferred to Barclays when it bought the brokerage.

But the our-hands-were-tied argument, which was never very convincing to begin with, now looks completely shot to pieces. Paulson and Bernanke made a decision to let Lehman fail; if they really wanted to, they could have rescued it."

Good for Andrew Ross Sorkin and Felix Salmon for fisking these stories. Anyone can be wrong, and I certainly understand that people could have believed and still do that letting Lehman blow up was the correct decision. But the truth about the decisions needs to come out. I believe, as I've already said when I read one of Bernanke's talks, that he actually believes that it was a poor decision. I believe that he will someday say so. In the meantime, I understand the hesistancy to seem even more clueless than you already appear to be. I, however, believe that admitting the Lehman Blunder would help inspire confidence. No one despises a rising learning curve, it's the descending ones that make the knees buckle and stomach churn.

To be honest, as I've said, considering it's the Bush Administration, Paulson and Bernanke are Godel and Einstein.

Friday, November 21, 2008

"The IMF said in October it expects banks around the world to need $675 billion in order to recapitalize."

What's the level of Counterparty Risk in the OTC. From Zubin Jelveh's Odd Numbers:

"In February, Barlcays estimated that if one major institution went down, there would most likely be between $36-$47 billion in losses due to counterparty risk in the credit default swap market as risk was repriced. A similar CDS study by BNP Paribas put the figure at $150 billion in potential losses.

But the repricing of risk extends just beyond the CDS market, IMF economists Miguel A. Segoviano and Manmohan Singh argue in a new working paper. Using data on banks' counterparty positions before the Bear Stearns collapse, the pair calculate the potential loss to the financial system from a repricing of risk across the entire OTC derivatives market:

in the case of a single institution failure, the total loss could be as high as $300-$400 billion depending on the [institution]; but when cascade effects are taken into account, the total loss could rise to over $1,500 billion.
And that's just the potential losses from the derivatives and not the underlying assets. The IMF said in October it expects banks around the world to need $675 billion in order to recapitalize."

Here's the paper:

"The financial market turmoil of recent months has highlighted the importance of counterparty
risk. Here, we discuss counterparty risk that may stem from the OTC derivatives markets and
attempt to assess the scope of potential cascade effects. This risk is measured by losses to the
financial system that may result via the OTC derivative contracts from the default of one or
more banks or primary broker-dealers. We then stress the importance of “netting” within the
OTC derivative contracts. Our methodology shows that, even using data from before the
worsening of the crisis in late Summer 2008, the potential cascade effects could be very
substantial. We summarize our results in the context of the stability of the banking system and
provide some policy measures that could be usefully considered by the regulators in their
discussions of current issues."

Okay. Let's go.

"In this paper we are interested in counterparty risk that may stem from the OTC derivatives
markets. The financial market turmoil of recent months has highlighted the importance of
such risk. The risk is measured by losses that may result via the OTC derivative contracts to
the financial system from the default (or fail) of one or more banks or broker dealers. Thus,
in order to quantify counterparty risk, we calculate (expected) losses absorbed by the system
under two different scenarios (described in Section II.D). For the estimation of (expected)
losses, we define (i) the exposure of the financial system to specific financial institutions
(FIs); and (ii) propose a novel methodology to estimate the probability that given that a
particular institution (counterparty) fails to deliver, other institutions in the system would
also fail to deliver."

The risk of :
1) A particular bank failing
2) If a particular banks fails, what would the fallout be

"Counterparty risk largely stems from the creditworthiness of an institution. In the context of
the financial system that includes banks, broker dealers, and other non-banking institutions
(e.g., insurers and pension funds), counterparty risk will be the cumulative loss to the
financial system from a counterparty that fails to deliver on its OTC derivative obligation.
Thus, in order to estimate the potential cumulative loss in the system, we need to quantify
two variables (i) the exposure of the financial system (EFS) to a particular institution or
institutions that would fail to deliver; and (ii) the probability that given that a particular
institution (counterparty) fails to deliver, other institutions in the system would also fail to
deliver."

I think they just said that.

"We define the exposure of the financial system to the failure of a particular counterparty as
the liabilities of a particular institution (counterparty) to others in the financial system
stemming from its OTC derivatives that have not been netted under a master netting
agreement (e.g., International Swaps and Derivatives Association) or cross margining
agreements where margin/cash is assigned and netted across product categories."

I wonder how they're going to do that.

"Notional amounts are defined as the gross nominal value of all OTC derivative deals
concluded and not yet settled on the reporting date. These amounts provide a measure of the
size of the market, but do not provide a measure of risk. Risk in derivatives stems from
various other variables including price changes, volatility, leverage and hedge ratios,
duration, liquidity, and counterparty risk."

See, I already don't like the number of variables.

'The OTC derivatives market is tailored to clients’ needs and thus goes beyond what is
available in the standardized contracts that exchanges offer. Assuming anywhere from 1-25
basis points bid/ask spread on the notional value traded (about $ 600 trillion), dealers derive a
significant income from OTC derivatives markets. Thus banks and prime brokers have a
vested interest in protecting their franchise, and therefore limit transparency and
standardization. However, if indeed the results of our scenarios are illustrative, counterparty
risk is large (and especially large where cascade effects result in more than one bank or prime
broker failing). In addition, the re-pricing risk following a counterparty failure cannot be
easily quantified. Pressure to re-hedge at such times will be enormous and perhaps
unaffordable, which could lead to unanticipated pressures on the financial system."

So, this could be really bad. I can't seem to be able to copy the graphs and such, so read it yourself.

Solutions:

1) Capital requirements across products and banks
2) A Clearing House
3) Easy to sell capital, that can be passed on
4) Standardize contracts

They all seem reasonable, but are they necessary. Maybe only 2 and 3, but 1 is advisable.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Was This Panic Dealmaking By Barclay's?

Today, a fascinating post by Robert Peston on BBC. First, a refresher:

"Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Barclays non-governmental recapitalisation efforts don’t exactly appear to be thundering forward."

Interesting post on Alphaville about banks not taking bailout money and how they're doing in getting investment:

"To bailout or not to bailout…

Barclays non-governmental recapitalisation efforts don’t exactly appear to be thundering forward. In the US, meanwhile, as observed by footnoted, banks’ are exhibiting some peculiarly similar recap-PR lines:

NorthernTrust put out a press release yesterday to announce its $1.5 billion infusion because it “fully supports the U.S. government’s efforts to strengthen our nation’s financial system.” There’s also this one from Valley National: “Although Valley is a well-capitalized organization, we believe such a program provides an excellent opportunity for healthy strong banks like Valley to participate in and support the recovery of the U.S. economy”. Even relatively small banks seem to be on message, like First Niagara which said in its press release yesterday, “We are supportive of the Treasury Department’s efforts and remain strongly committed to supporting the economy in Upstate New York.”

Banks’ boards, indeed, face quite a tough call when it comes to using government money. The below has been sent to us from Hilary Winter - a partner at Orrick:"

Do read the whole post."

So, Barclays is attempting to weather this turmoil without government largess, but was having a rough time of it. Next:

"Monday, November 3, 2008

"But governments were implicitly underwriting the financial system all along. They still are."

Here's another interesting post on the FT:

"Not exactly a private solution. Indeed, even if Barclays is not owned in some part by the UK government, it will still be guaranteed by it – and that matters.

Last month, the UK government asked banks to fortify themselves against further financial shocks by increasing their capital cushions, in return for which it would offer new guarantees on inter-bank lending. To help the banks to raise new capital, the Treasury offered to buy preference shares, albeit only on onerous terms; some hoped that the banks would seek alternatives. This is what Barclays has done."

The British plan is:

1) Banks must increase capital ( The big problem )

2) Government guarantees inter-bank lending ( The resulting problem )

3) Government buys shares in banks ( Seems reasonable to me. Better deal for taxpayers )

4) Terms of loan to be onerous ( Absolutely necessary )

5) Would prefer private solution ( Absolutely )

So, in the U.K., the terms on the loans from the government were thought to be onerous. Really:

"It is striking that these investors are charging more than the UK government’s punitive rate. Given that sovereign wealth funds’ earlier investment in financial institutions have resulted in heavy paper losses, it is hardly surprising that the Gulf royals have driven a hard bargain.

Ultimately, it is for shareholders to decide whether to back this deal. There can be no doubt Barclays is paying a heavy price for a measure of independence."

Now note this:

"The bank, however, is still not entirely independent. One of the great fictions of recent years was that large banks could be allowed to fail and had no state guarantees. But governments were implicitly underwriting the financial system all along. They still are. Regardless of who owns the shares, the UK Treasury must make sure that its large banks are stable – and it has a duty to intervene if they are not.

The Gulf deal has reduced risk for the UK government; in the event of problems, new shareholders will lose out before the exchequer. But Barclays is much too big to fail, and the government would be forced into a rescue if the bank were seriously to stumble. The government may not be in the boardroom but it must keep a watchful eye."

Absolutely. This fiction has been the main point on this blog since the beginning of this crisis. The guarantees are still there. I've already explained what we can do going forward, but it's at least becoming clear to everyone that these guarantees were in place. It only remains to examine how they factored into this crisis."

So, Barclays found outside investment, even though, as my post claims, their ultimate guarantor is the government. But they paid more for the private deal than the government deal would have cost. Once again, they paid a premium to remain independent. But, did they act prudently in this deal, or rush to get it done to stay out of the government's clutches? You tell me. From Peston:

"Here's what you need to know.

BarclaysWhen Barclays only 19 days ago sold £3bn of these Reserve Capital Instruments (RCIs) to Qatar and Abu Dhabi, it threw in warrants to purchase 1.5bn new Barclays shares at any time in the next five years at a price of 197.775p each.

According to Sandy Chen of Panmure Gordon, each of these warrants is worth around 16p, which would value the lot at just under £250m (and, by the way, some analysts have argued that the warrants are worth a good deal more than this).

They were apparently an important sweetener to persuade Qatar and Abu Dhabi to buy the RCIs. What's more, Qatar and Abu Dhabi were also paid a £60m commission in cash for taking the RCIs.

In other words, Qatar and Abu Dhabi were paid a bit more than £300m for buying £3bn of securities - and these securities pay a stonking 14% rate of interest until June 2019 (many of us would love a bank to pay us that kind of interest).

So, Qatar and Abu Dhabi got a good deal. So what?

"Here's the thing.

Other investors yesterday bought £500m of the RCIs without the inducement of the warrants or the cash commission.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, although Qatar and Abu Dhabi were prepared to release £500m of the warrants for sale to other investors - following complaints from British investors that they should have been offered these in the first place - the Gulf investors didn't give back any of the commission or warrants.

Qatar and Abu Dhabi therefore ended up being paid over £300m for taking even less risk on their investment in Barclays.

It's worked out very nicely for them indeed. Now there's a proven appetite for these RCIs, they could presumably sell the rest on the open market, should that be appealing to them. In which case, the £300m would become pure profit attached to zero investment risk.

So why on earth did Barclays less than three weeks ago feel it had to pay so much money to Qatar and Abu Dhabi, to persuade them to buy these securities?

Well, it points out that market conditions were fraught at the time.

But there was no urgent rush to raise the money. As Barclays told me back then, the Financial Services Authority had given it till early next year to raise the capital it needed.

Arguably therefore Barclays has needlessly given away £300m."

That doesn't sound good.

"Could the board make amends? Well Barclays' four executive directors have volunteered to forego their bonuses.

But they would probably have to do without bonuses for around 10 years to compensate for the shareholder wealth given away in this transaction.

Which means that the decision by the board to offer itself up for re-election may turn out to be more than a symbolic gesture.

In particular, there is likely to be pressure on the chairman, Marcus Agius, to explain why he and the non-executives permitted the deal with Qatar and Abu Dhabi to be transacted on such generous terms."

I should hope that they are called to account. But, I also want to file this one, unless otherwise informed, under panic selling or dealmaking. I simply wonder how much, in retrospect, of this kind of panic will turn up.


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"What matters is the explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the state to the banks to back up their assets and provide liquidity. "

Here's an interesting exchange involving a few of my favorite people, Felix Salmon, Willem Buiter, and John Hempton. Let's begin here:

"There is a wonderful (simply wonderful)
paper by Willem Buiter and Anne Siebert on the Icelandic banking crisis.

It’s the sort of paper that puts the lie to the line “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition” because the core part of the paper was written – under contract – to the Icelandic Central Bank. All agreed that the contents were “too hot” and the academic authors agreed to secrecy.

Now that the worst has happened there is less need for secrecy so the paper has been published along with policy prescriptions for Iceland.

Ok – well and good.

Their explanation was that it doesn’t matter whether the Icelandic banks were solvent or insolvent – there was a simple problem that the banks were large compared to the Icelandic economy and the governments could not conceivably bail them out. As a result a run on one of them would collapse them all.

I will express an opinion on one – and one only. I think Kaupthing – which was by far the most aggressive purchaser of foreign assets – was probably insolvent.

Anyway the lesson was that a country could not afford to have banks whose liquidity they could not guarantee in a run. If the banks were so big you could not guarantee the liquidity then the banks were set up to fail."

Somehow, this seems obvious, but it's not.

"Of course there is one remaining country with banks that are large-relative-to-the-economy – and that is the UK. RBOS and Barclays are both enormous and - at best opaque.

Now do American taxpayers want to pick up UBS or Barclays? I don’t think in the end they will have any choice. The banks will fail or they won’t. And if they fail – well I hate to say it – but the new administration will be stuck with it. I guess UBS will lose its tax avoidance business in the process… and a few American rich folk can help pay for it all with their back taxes... unfortunately the risks to the system are bigger than that..."

Wait a minute. Are we implicitly agreeing to guarantee the whole world?

Now Felix Salmon:

"Richard Baldwin of VoxEU gives us a sneak preview of a new article by Jon Danielsson:

In this crisis, the strength of a bank's balance sheet is of little consequence. What matters is the explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the state to the banks to back up their assets and provide liquidity. Therefore, the size of the state relative to the size of the banks becomes the crucial factor. If the banks become too big to save, their failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This seems right to me. And also very scary, because of one country: Switzerland."

Here we go again with implicit and explicit guarantees.

"This could be the first make-or-break economic issue to face Barack Obama: if it came to it, would Treasury bail out UBS? I'm sure it would try to get European governments to pitch in too, and the Swiss, of course, to the extent that they can. But I'm sure I'm not the only person praying that UBS never comes close enough to the edge that we have to find out."

Here's my reply:

Posted: Nov 12 2008 10:03am ET
"What matters is the explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the state to the banks to back up their assets and provide liquidity."

Can we all agree,at least, that these guarantees become explicit and clearly defined? This is beginning to sound to me like Dr. Strangelove:

Strangelove explains the principles behind the Doomsday Device, which he says is "simple to understand... credible and convincing." He also points out that a Doomsday Device kept secret has no value as a deterrent; the Soviet Ambassador admits that his government had installed it a few days before they were going to announce it publicly to the world, because Kissoff "likes surprises".

"But I'm sure I'm not the only person praying that UBS never comes close enough to the edge that we have to find out."

Um, have we implicitly guaranteed the entire banking planet?


Monday, November 10, 2008

``Perception trumping reality once more.'': A Philosphical Treatment By Richard Fuld

We just heard Liddy, now, from Bloomberg, let's listen to Fuld:

``Here we go again,'' Fuld erupted at one point, the person recalled. ``Perception trumping reality once more.''

It was vintage Fuld, a man so physically imposing, so volcanically explosive that, even at age 62, he scared underlings and competitors alike. He was raging on the captain's bridge, while a storm engulfed the company he had willed into becoming one of Wall Street's finest. Couldn't the short-sellers see how much he had done to shed bad assets? Couldn't they understand what a great franchise it still was?

Fuld was grounded enough in reality to know one thing: ``We've got to act fast,'' he said, ``so this financial tsunami doesn't wash us away.''

Fuld's an epistemologist. Who knew? Oh dear, weather words. It's bad.

"Then, on the morning of Sept. 14, after a series of weekend meetings at the New York Fed, a private deal to save the firm from bankruptcy was hatched. The government persuaded a syndicate of banks to backstop a new entity that would take over $55 billion to $60 billion of Lehman's troubled assets, and London-based Barclays Plc agreed to acquire the rest of the firm, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

When the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority refused to sign off on the Barclays purchase late that morning, U.S. officials refused to take any steps to save the deal. At about 2 a.m. on Monday, Sept. 15, Lehman filed the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history."

Why?

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 504 points on the day Lehman collapsed, triggering an increase in bank borrowing costs and a run on money-market funds and financial institutions around the world. By Tuesday, Paulson and Bernanke had reversed course, agreeing to an $85 billion bailout of foundering American International Group Inc., at the time the world's largest insurer. The government has since decided to make $250 billion of capital infusions to bolster major U.S. banks. Only Lehman has paid the ultimate price of the financial meltdown to date -- obliteration by bankruptcy."

Still, some claim it wasn't a mistake. Go figure.

"As cut off from information as Fuld may have been, it wasn't as if he didn't recognize the firm's problems. In November 2004, more than two years before the bull market reached its peak, Fuld was telling people around him that low interest rates and cheap credit would create a bubble that could one day pop.

``It's paving the road with cheap tar,'' he told colleagues in a meeting at the time. ``When the weather changes, the potholes that were there will be deeper and uglier.''

Weather again. Here's my point: An actual human agent saw the problem and did nothing.

"Fuld also warned against taking on too much risk, such as leveraged loans, which are used to finance buyouts of firms, as Lehman tried to compete with commercial banks that used their bigger balance sheets to support investment banking operations. ``We're vulnerable if we throw our balance sheet around,'' Fuld said, according to a person at the meeting. "

He's a kind of Cassandra apparently, not the head of a business.

"Lehman used its balance sheet to finance leveraged buyouts anyway. So did other Wall Street firms forced to compete with commercial banks, which were allowed to practice investment banking after the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Leveraged loans weren't Lehman's undoing, though. Fuld saw the dangers they posed and rid the firm of the riskiest ones in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to company filings.

What Fuld failed to do is take advantage of a rebound in the prices of fixed-income assets at the time to sell some of Lehman's $84 billion mortgage portfolio. He took false comfort in having hedged the firm's mortgage positions at the end of 2006. Because of the hedges, insiders say, Lehman executives were sanguine after the July 2007 implosion of two Bear Stearns hedge funds that had invested in subprime securities. Fuld even loaded up on mortgage-backed securities at the beginning of 2008, not seeing how vulnerable the firm would be when the subprime cancer metastasized to other asset classes."

I thought that he'd predicted a bubble?

"To Fuld, the idea was outrageous. The hit was a matter of wrong perceptions, not weak fundamentals. So he got on the phone with the firm's biggest clients to tell them Lehman was no Bear Stearns, and he ordered other executives to do the same."

Objects in the mirror are bigger than they appear.

"Why Fuld was unable to find a buyer for all or part of Lehman remains a matter of dispute. It was not for want of trying, although some people familiar with those efforts throughout the spring and summer say he was unwilling to accept the rapidly falling valuation of his firm.

``Dick was so proud of Lehman that he was slow to recognize that others didn't share that belief,'' said George L. Ball, chairman of Houston-based investment firm Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and a friend of Fuld's."

Sounds here like Fuld couldn't differentiate between perception and reality. It's Proustian, frankly. The problem you project onto others is actually your own.

"Even interested parties figured the price would keep coming down, as real estate valuations fell and Lehman got more desperate for cash. The Bear Stearns precedent, in which the government stepped in to facilitate a deal, also gave prospective buyers a reason to wait."

Absolute gold. I've been waiting for it. Waiting for government intervention. Got it!

"Meanwhile, worried that his lieutenants wouldn't be able to fetch a fair price from an investor, Fuld was pursuing another strategy. The plan his associates devised would offload Lehman's toxic commercial-mortgage portfolio to an independent company, codenamed Spinco. The new company's stock would be owned by Lehman shareholders, and its startup capital would be provided by the firm. While Lehman would have to raise fresh capital to replace what it transferred to Spinco, investors would be buying into an investment bank with a scrubbed balance sheet. "

I might work this into a novel.

"The cost of insuring Lehman's debt surged by almost 200 basis points after the KDB news, rising to 500, still not as high as where Bear Stearns's credit-default swaps were trading before its collapse. (A basis point equals one-hundredth of a percentage point.)

That caused Lehman's hedge fund clients to pull out, and short-term creditors cut lending lines. New York-based JPMorgan, Lehman's clearing agent for trades, demanded additional powers to seize cash and collateral in the firm's accounts."

It does appear that he's sitting on a weaker and weaker hand. Perhaps he playing a game none of us understand.

"The next day, Sept. 10, Fuld pre-announced quarterly results -- a $3.9 billion loss, after $5.6 billion of writedowns. He also said Lehman would auction off a majority stake in its asset-management division, and he revealed his Spinco plan. He was still talking defiantly.

``We have a long track record of pulling together when times are tough,'' Fuld said on a conference call with investors. ``We are on track to put these last two quarters behind us.''

Once again, Fuld was a step behind events. Before the day was out, Moody's Investors Service said it was reviewing Lehman's credit ratings and that it would downgrade the firm unless it made a deal with a strategic partner. Lehman's shares fell another 42 percent the next day to $4.22."

Perception and reality again. This article is making him sound like King Lear.

"As things were spinning out of control, Fuld turned to the federal regulators with whom he had been talking since the demise of Bear Stearns.

He had approached Timothy F. Geithner, 47, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in July to see whether Lehman might become a bank-holding company, which would allow it to widen its funding base."

Now he's an alchemist.

"Meanwhile, Paulson was putting out the word there would be no more federal bailouts, that the government couldn't rescue every failing investment bank. "

Note to Paulson. Moral hazard only works when you enforce it from the beginning. If you don't, then your actions seem fickle and arbitary.

"When asked why AIG was saved and Lehman wasn't, he leaned into a microphone, scowled and slowly replied: ``Until the day they put me in the ground, I will wonder.''

I told you we'd learn a lot if we'd just listen. Fuld was right, and is just saying what I said people would say once you've ignored moral hazard. Actions are as important as words.

"At that point, the only way to save the deal would have been for U.S. regulators to make the temporary debt guarantee. They didn't. Paulson, who told the New York Times he didn't have the authority to rescue Lehman, didn't answer questions about Sunday's events submitted by Bloomberg. Nor did Geithner. "

What's he going to say? I'm an ass. He's too rich to admit that to himself.

"Fuld thought Paulson was in his corner, he told a person familiar with events, even as the Treasury secretary publicly resisted spending taxpayer money to help Lehman. Fuld was stunned, the person says, when Paulson didn't throw him a lifeline at the end.

It was McDade who called Fuld from the Fed meeting on Sunday afternoon, not Paulson. Far from helping Lehman, Paulson, Geithner and other officials, including SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, began pressing Lehman to declare bankruptcy. McDade told them that would have serious repercussions for other firms. Wall Street executives gathered at the Fed said a bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of the world. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley both had war rooms with charts detailing Lehman's subsidiaries and their exposure to each one, and they thought their potential losses would be limited.

No one, not even Lehman, knew what furies the firm's failure was about to unleash."

He misheard Paulson, who told him to go sit in the corner. Mythology talk. That's bad as well.

"The end came at about 2 a.m. Sept. 15, when Fuld, out of running room, filed for bankruptcy. That day the Standard & Poor's 500 Index had its biggest daily drop since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and bank-lending rates soared. Paulson, who was poised to let AIG fail, quickly re-thought the wisdom of that decision and approved an $85 billion bailout. He and Bernanke also went to Congress to push for a $700 billion federal bailout to buy bad assets from troubled banks.

Only Lehman ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fuld was hard-pressed to explain his fate when he appeared in front of Waxman's committee on Oct. 6. To many of the congressmen's hostile questions and accusations, he had no answers. ``I wake up every single night,'' Fuld said, ``thinking, `What could I have done differently?'''

It might have ended differently had Fuld not risked so much on mortgage-backed securities. It might have ended differently had Fuld been willing to acknowledge Lehman's falling valuations. It might have ended differently if Fuld had made a deal in June, or July, or August.

That would have required acknowledging that time had run out on Wall Street's over-leveraged, overpaid gilded age. Instead, in his stubbornness and isolation, Dick Fuld failed to save the firm he lived for."

He walked out into cold evening air, bumped into a man carrying a bag of groceries, and quickly apologized. The cars and buses roared past him, ignoring the dimensions of the harm his failings would cause to the world's financial system. A beautiful middle aged woman smiled at him, something that would usually cheer him up, but not today.

"Why did I risk so much on mortgage-backed securities?", he asked aloud to passing pedestrians, none of whom responded, either because they didn't know or didn't care. "Was is simply a matter of using the name 'Spinco'?", he mused. "Could it all boil down to choosing a laughable name sounding like one of the Marx Brothers?"

Time for me to end this narrative before I actually start writing a novel based on it.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

" Why we have decided not to take funds from the UK Government"

Fascinating post on Alphaville today:

"Message from John Varley: My perspective on Barclays Capital Raising

Monday, 3 November 2008)Dear Colleague

Dear Colleague

There was a lot said and written in the media on Friday and over the weekend about our capital raising and I wanted to write today to share my perspective on what has been said so far (there will be more coverage in due course – of that I am in no doubt).

Often when I write to you I am trying to make sure that you have the arguments at your fingertips so that, if you are challenged by friends or family, or indeed by customers and colleagues, as to what we are doing and why, you have been able to develop your own views.

I am going to cover three areas in particular in this letter:

• Why we have decided not to take funds from the UK Government
• Why we chose to raise capital in the way that we did
• How the path we have chosen looks in hindsight – especially versus the UK Government option
"

Read the whole thing:

"It was very clear from the conversations that I had with the UK Government over that weekend that it would, as a shareholder, influence our dividend policy; it would influence our lending policy; and it would become involved in the formulation of strategy. Of course the role of the Board is to protect the interest of shareholders and to create the circumstances in which, over time, we can maximise value on their behalf. And that was what was in the mind of the Board as we came to our decisions: we felt that our ability to do what our shareholders would expect of us would be compromised if Barclays was nationalised."

Of course the government would get involved if the taxpayer's money is involved. He is actually saying that the government would make poor decisions, otherwise, why care about the involvement?

"First of all, the cost of the reserve capital instruments (or RCIs) that we intend to issue is not significantly different to the cost of the preference shares which those who took UK government money will issue, and that is true even if we take into account the cost of the warrants which attach to the RCIs. Second, the discount on the new shares that we are issuing is bigger than the discount that we would have got from the UK Government. But it is significantly smaller than the discount that would have been forced on us had we done a conventional rights issue.

My next point is rather complex but it’s important: it seems to me very clear that the only reason that we would have taken UK Government support was because we had lost the right to choice – i.e., because the FSA would have concluded that it was not safe for us to open for business on the morning of Monday, 13 October"

They're actually paying more to keep the government out. Wow. I approve.

This is what TARP should have done. Make the terms so onerous that only insolvent banks would apply. However, I would have let those banks fail, or have taken them over to get the taxpayers the best deal on saving an insolvent bank, assuming that makes sense. Given AIG, someone must believe that it is.

Here was my comment:

Posted by Don the libertarian Democrat [report]

"It was very clear from the conversations that I had with the UK Government over that weekend that it would, as a shareholder, influence our dividend policy; it would influence our lending policy; and it would become involved in the formulation of strategy."

Obviously, for the worse, otherwise why would you care?

"not significantly different to the cost of the preference shares which those who took UK government money will issue"

But it is more. However, these investors will allow us to make money and run our business correctly.

Take that government.

Monday, November 3, 2008

"But governments were implicitly underwriting the financial system all along. They still are."

Here's another interesting post on the FT:

"Not exactly a private solution. Indeed, even if Barclays is not owned in some part by the UK government, it will still be guaranteed by it – and that matters.

Last month, the UK government asked banks to fortify themselves against further financial shocks by increasing their capital cushions, in return for which it would offer new guarantees on inter-bank lending. To help the banks to raise new capital, the Treasury offered to buy preference shares, albeit only on onerous terms; some hoped that the banks would seek alternatives. This is what Barclays has done."

The British plan is:

1) Banks must increase capital ( The big problem )

2) Government guarantees inter-bank lending ( The resulting problem )

3) Government buys shares in banks ( Seems reasonable to me. Better deal for taxpayers )

4) Terms of loan to be onerous ( Absolutely necessary )

5) Would prefer private solution ( Absolutely )

So, in the U.K., the terms on the loans from the government were thought to be onerous. Really:

"It is striking that these investors are charging more than the UK government’s punitive rate. Given that sovereign wealth funds’ earlier investment in financial institutions have resulted in heavy paper losses, it is hardly surprising that the Gulf royals have driven a hard bargain.

Ultimately, it is for shareholders to decide whether to back this deal. There can be no doubt Barclays is paying a heavy price for a measure of independence."

Now note this:

"The bank, however, is still not entirely independent. One of the great fictions of recent years was that large banks could be allowed to fail and had no state guarantees. But governments were implicitly underwriting the financial system all along. They still are. Regardless of who owns the shares, the UK Treasury must make sure that its large banks are stable – and it has a duty to intervene if they are not.

The Gulf deal has reduced risk for the UK government; in the event of problems, new shareholders will lose out before the exchequer. But Barclays is much too big to fail, and the government would be forced into a rescue if the bank were seriously to stumble. The government may not be in the boardroom but it must keep a watchful eye."

Absolutely. This fiction has been the main point on this blog since the beginning of this crisis. The guarantees are still there. I've already explained what we can do going forward, but it's at least becoming clear to everyone that these guarantees were in place. It only remains to examine how they factored into this crisis.


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Barclays non-governmental recapitalisation efforts don’t exactly appear to be thundering forward."

Interesting post on Alphaville about banks not taking bailout money and how they're doing in getting investment:

"To bailout or not to bailout…

Barclays non-governmental recapitalisation efforts don’t exactly appear to be thundering forward. In the US, meanwhile, as observed by footnoted, banks’ are exhibiting some peculiarly similar recap-PR lines:

NorthernTrust put out a press release yesterday to announce its $1.5 billion infusion because it “fully supports the U.S. government’s efforts to strengthen our nation’s financial system.” There’s also this one from Valley National: “Although Valley is a well-capitalized organization, we believe such a program provides an excellent opportunity for healthy strong banks like Valley to participate in and support the recovery of the U.S. economy”. Even relatively small banks seem to be on message, like First Niagara which said in its press release yesterday, “We are supportive of the Treasury Department’s efforts and remain strongly committed to supporting the economy in Upstate New York.”

Banks’ boards, indeed, face quite a tough call when it comes to using government money. The below has been sent to us from Hilary Winter - a partner at Orrick:"

Do read the whole post.

Here's my comment:

Posted by Don the libertarian Democrat [report]

Maybe the banks that don’t take money from the government should say something like the following:

” We conducted our business in such a way as to not need government money, and are even getting private money in this environment, showing how much we are trusted. And, hey, we won’t lose the taxpayers a lot of money. So invest in us: Don’s Bank: I don’t need no stinking bailout!

I wonder how Casey Mulligan feels about this story?