How Big is Lehman’s Failure? Big!

Lehman Brothers had $639 billion in assets and $613 billion in liabilities when it declared bankruptcy – the largest bankruptcy in US history.  Most of those assets will be unwound, revalued, and sold to cover the liabilities.  By the time this is over, shareholders will most likely receive nothing.

How much is $639 billion?  Well, here are some comparisons.

$639 billion would buy you:

That’s a lot of money!

The Meltdown Put – Wall Street’s New Moral Hazard

The Bear Stearns failure followed by the Lehman failure have created a new kind of moral hazard for Wall Street, something I’ve started calling The Meltdown Put.

A “put” is a kind of option that works very simply.  Two people form a contract, a seller and a buyer.  The seller writes the contract and agrees that if a stock or security drops below a certain price, they will buy that security from the buyer at that price.  So if I buy a put option for a stock at $10 and the stock drops to $9, then I can still sell my stock at $10.

When Bear Stearns failed, the government stepped in and arranged a bailout that eventually valued Bear at $10 per share.  Had the government not appeared, then Bear would likely have filed for bankruptcy just like Lehman.  Shareholders would have received $0 per share.

Like Bear Stearns, Lehman sits on a lot of messy banking contracts, repos, and all kinds of other stuff.  But unlike Bear, Lehman lacks the kind of complexity and depth of Bear’s arrangements for a variety of reasons (including the Fed’s new lending window for banks).  A failure of Bear would have been awful. A failure at Lehman is bad, but not the end of the world.  The Federal Government, tired of bailing out banks, has conspicuously ignored all pleas to help Lehman.

This is what I am now calling a Meltdown Put.  It works like this: if you’re doing something risky, do it in such a way that a failure of your project results in complete financial Armageddon.  While counter intuitive, you will actually protect shareholder value and backstop their losses by forcing the Federal Government to bail you out.  On the other hand, a more conservative approach will give the government less reason to care, and your shareholders end up absorbing your losses.

Essentially, the government now has an implied put contract on all banks.  If a bank risks ending the world, they’ll get bailed out.  If not, they’ll get ignored.  It’s not completely like a real put, but close enough.

The market rewards risk, and the Meltdown Put is the ultimate reward and the ultimate moral hazard.  The shareholders of any company with their finger on a financial nuclear bomb will be better off than those of a more conservative company.  The outcome from this can’t possibly be good.

Financial Meltdown

Months back, I wrote about the Bear Stearns collapse and why the government bailout was so important.  Now the meltdown continues, and this time it involves more people.

Here’s a quick rundown of the players and what’s involved.

Lehman Brothers – A very old and respected bank, Lehman has long been the “next bank to go” after Bear Stearns. As a bank, they were far more conservative than Bear, but they were still able to amass enormous losses from mortgage exposure.  They had previously been trying to find a buyer, but after a deal with the Korea Development Bank failed, Lehman’s stock has plunged in value.  This is the second time Lehman has been “on the brink” – the previous time was 1984 when the bank was bought by American Express after a massive internal power struggle left them in a precarious position (AMEX divested it in 1994). This time, possible deals with Bank of America and Barclays have failed.  Lehman will likely file for bankruptcy in the next 24 hours and be liquidated over the coming months.

Merrill Lynch – Another well respected bank that, like Lehman, has amassed enormous losses despite being relatively conservative.  They were frequently brought up in the same breath with Lehman as a bank on the verge of failing.  Tonight, to the surprise of most people, Bank of America announced they were buying Merrill instead of Lehman.  The reported price is around $44 – $50 billion.

Fannie and Freddy – Technically last week’s news, these are the government sponsored mortgage lending programs designed to maximize home ownership. Last weekend, the government announced a sweeping program to take over these two programs and put them under full government control.

AIG – The next to go.  AIG is a global insurance company with tremendous exposure to the mortgage industry.  They have long held a AAA debt rating, allowing them to borrow very cheaply, invest in higher returning assets, and make tremendous profits.  At this point, AIG basically needs cash, but it’s not clear if they’ll be able to find it.  What’s worse is that their debt rating may be downgraded, unleashing even more misery on their balance sheet.

All in all, it’s an interesting weekend.  Here are some links for articles:

Nation’s Financial Industry Gripped by Fear

AIG looking at “options” for businesses, capital

Frantic day on Wall Street as banks teeter

A.I.G. Seeks $40 Billion in Fed Aid to Survive

Lehman bankrupt, Merrill bought, AIG collapsing: Where does it all end?

Bear Stearns Meltdown

Bear Stearns LogoFor anyone who follows the financial press, the meltdown at Bear Stearns shouldn’t be news. On Sunday, JPMorgan Chase stepped in and purchased the beleaguered investment bank for $2 a share, or $236 million, after acting as an intermediary to a Federal Reserve bailout on Friday. JPMorgan’s actions brought to mind the Banking Panic of 1907, when the real John Pierpont Morgan stepped in and calmed the financial markets after the collapse of the Knickerbocker Trust Company. The price paid for Bear Stearns was a bit of a shock to everyone, especially since their share price closed at $30 at the end of trading on Friday. In all honesty, when I first read the news I thought the reporter had accidentally left off a 0 and that the deal was actually $20 a share.

So how could a bank go from having a share price of $170 a share to $2 a share in the matter of a few months? Well, the answers are complicated. Bear had a lot of exposure to the mortgage market in a number of its businesses, and last summer the company bailed out two of its subprime mortgage hedge funds. The storm that followed grew, combined with some others, and eventually became the mortgage mess we have today.

What brought down Bear Stearns yesterday, however, was something else entirely. Bear frequently participates in a certain kind of transaction called a Repurchase Agreement or “repo” for short. This is essentially a type of short-term loan where two people (called a counterparties), one with cash and the other with assets, get together and swap. The asset holder takes the cash and extends their assets as collateral for the deal. These kinds of arrangements can be very short (overnight) or somewhat long (a couple of years), but by and large they are meant to be very liquid transactions. The cash holders are usually large money market funds, hedge funds, or corporations; while the asset holders can be just about everything from governments with bonds to other corporations to mortgage companies.

Bear Stearns was both a repo borrower and a repo lender, but they were more of one than the other. The difference between their borrowing and lending was $74.5 billion, with more borrowing than lending. That’s quite the substantial sum but not necessarily bad. Bear’s real problem was a lack of faith in their assets: mortgage securities. Over the past several weeks, the markets for these assets have simply stopped moving, meaning that in many cases buying and selling them is very difficult.

For Bear Stearns, the problem was simply that some of their creditors wanted repayment on their repos (they wanted their money they had lent to Bear back), but Bear was unable to find enough liquidity in the market using its large portfolio of mortgage securities. In other words, Bear couldn’t find enough money through additional repos and nobody would buy their mortgage securities outright. Other creditors, sensing trouble, began piling on and trying to get their money back as well. Since Bear Stearns had $75 billion more borrowed than lent, they were ultimately screwed without extra financing.

Obviously, this carries greater implications for the market than just mortgages. Repos are incredibly common, and a breakdown in that market would have created repercussions that extended all over the place. Ordinary investors would have seen their money market accounts mysteriously shrink while major corporations would begin running out of cash and face liquidity issues. When the Fed said it wanted to prevent financial panic from spreading, they damn well meant it.

A few other tidbits:

  • During the JP Morgan conference call, an individual investor named Brian Firestone somehow managed to get through the screeners and ask a question. These calls are usually reserved for analysts who are well versed in the minutia of the deals, and Mr. Firestone’s question clearly demonstrates why. “I vote not to approve this sale,” he said after having his question about why a sale was preferable to bankruptcy rebuffed. He seemed to think that individual investors actually mattered here, but in reality he was rejecting a $2 a share deal in favor of Bear Stearns entering bankruptcy which would have netted him a whopping $0 a share.
  • Go read that bail out article again that I mentioned above. Note the companies listed as helping Bear with their hedge fund mess: Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and JPMorgan Chase. Today, JPMorgan owns Bear while Merrill and Lehman are both suffering their own mortgage meltdowns. Lehman in particular may be the next to go (again), even though they claim otherwise.

Update: The Wall Street Journal has a nice run down of the events of the weekend.

Update 2: Brian Firestone responds and he has some great thoughts!