Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
  • June 27, 2008 10:39 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    New Details from Fed Minutes on Bear Stearns Rescue

    Minutes from a high-stakes Federal Reserve meeting on the emergency rescue of Bear Stearns are out this morning, and they are revealing.

    They provide fresh detail on what went on behind the scenes of the Fed-orchestrated shotgun wedding between JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, including fears of a "contagion" spreading through the market if Bear Stearns was allowed to collapse.

    The contagion here refers to the fact that Bear Stearns operated one of the country's largest clearing operations, and a collapse would have cascaded through the system, causing calamity in counterparty trades.

    Let’s recap. Bear Stearns had $389b in assets and $387 bn in liabilities at the time it went belly-up. It had $11.9 bn in shareholder equity, or net worth, to support that book of business.

    The bonds on its books were getting crushed by the subprime crisis, so much so that two of Bear’s own hedge funds went belly-up last July, with the two former hedge fund managers subsequently arrested for alleged securities fraud and conspiracy, among other things. A cash run on the bank leading up to its St. Patrick's day rescue put Bear Stearns on the brink of bankruptcy.

    JPMorgan Chase's chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon initially balked at the thought of his bank taking on Bear's colossal balance sheet, and rejected a deal. “I tell people that buying a house is not the same as buying a house on fire,” Dimon testified before Congress later (Dimon sits on the board of governors of the New York Federal Reserve).

    The Fed then stepped in with an initial $30b loan, and then JPMorgan agreed to buy Bear Stearns for $2 a share, or $236m. JPMorgan increased its offer to $10 a share a week later amid a revolt by the smaller firm’s shareholders. JPMorgan is now digesting Bear's massive $360 bn balance sheet.

    Back to the $30b loan JPMorgan got from the Fed to seal the deal, supported by Bear securities that the two sides say were valued, or marked to market, at $30b as of March 14.

    The Fed came up with as novel a rescue as it could. Using a creative read of section 13A of the Federal Reserve Act, the New York Fed agreed to lend JPMorgan $30 bn over 10 years at a small 2.5% rate, a loan backed by a similar amount of Bear Stearns’ assets. Never before had the Fed taken on mortgage-backed securities as collateral. The Fed is now holding those assets to maturity and is not marking them to market, analysts note.

    JP Morgan subsequently agreed to absorb the first $1b of losses on that $30b if the value of the assets backing its loan declines. Again, if that portfolio drops in value, JP takes the first $1b in losses. If the portfolio zeroes out, the Fed takes a $29b hit. The assets now sit in a Delaware limited liability company.

    The Fed minutes show that JPMorgan "had requested assistance in financing a specific pool of assets that Bear Stearns had difficulty financing in the market" and that JPMorgan Chase "believed added significant uncertainty to the level of risk it would assume" in its acquisition of Bear Stearns.

    To seal the deal, the minutes show that the Fed gave JPMorgan Chase, among other things, an 18-month exemption from the Fed's statutes requiring banks to hold a certain amount of capital on its books against its risk-weighted assets. Banks also must adhere to international debt to capital ratios under the Basel accords. The capital ratio is the percentage of a bank's capital to its risk-weighted assets.

    The Fed let JPMorgan "exclude the assets and exposures of Bear Stearns" from its risk-weighted assets for purposes of applying the risk-based capital requirements" at the bank. The Fed also let JPMorgan "exclude the assets of Bear Stearns from the denominator of its tier 1 leverage capital ratio" requirements, noting that "each exemption would be reduced over time."

    The relaxation of the standards was necessary to stop a disaster the Fed says it saw coming if Bear went under.

    Also, “by agreeing to lend against a portfolio of securities, we reduced the risk that those assets would be liquidated quickly, exacerbating already fragile conditions in the markets,” New York Federal Reserve Bank president Timothy Geithner testified before Congress in defending the deal.

    A fire sale would have created chaos in an already crazy market.

    Now the debate is just what is in that $30b pool of assets, given that the Fed is taking on this credit at a time when the government is already levered to the hilt, what with what is going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The New York Fed hired Black Rock, 49% owned by Merrill Lynch, to cherry pick the best assets off of Bear’s books to use as collateral. Both sides signed a confidentiality agreement covering those assets–-why tip your hand to the market and invite unwanted arbitrage?

    Only broad descriptions are available. The Bear assets are collateralized mortgage obligations, the majority of which are obligations backed by the likes of Freddie Mac, as well as asset-backed securities with things like adjustable rate mortgages, as well as commercial mortgage-backed securities, collateralized bond obligations, and cash assets consisting of investment grade securities rated BBB- or higher.

    But how sound is that $30b worth of collateral?

    JP’s Dimon testified: “We could not and would not have assumed the substantial risks of acquiring Bear Stearns without the $30b facility provided by the Fed.”

    That comment led Sen. Robert Menendez to ask: “JP Morgan would have never gotten involved [in the deal] but for your [the Fed's] guarantee” that it would swallow $29b in Bear’s assets and not hit up JPMorgan for other collateral if those Bear assets zero out. Menendez wondered, is that a vote of confidence in these assets?

    And remember what Geithner said in testimony before Congress, in defending the central against criticisms that it should have opened its Fed window to investment banks, not just commercial banks, to help Bear Stearns survive. “We only allow sound institutions to borrow against collateral” at the Fed’s discount window, he testified, adding, “I would have been very uncomfortable lending to Bear given what we knew at that time.”

    What suddenly turned Bear’s assets golden as collateral for the Fed's $29b loan to JPMorgan, what turned those sows ears into silk purses over night?

DrZoidberg

Maybe someone could post here - WHERE one can write any thoughts in a broader forum ? Running downstairs to get a coffee- I caught FBN running a comment on Florida suing Mozilo. They left out Washington State in the list of states suing. It's California, Illinois, Washington AND now Florida. Odd - these states are suing on the very subject MacDonald brings forward on these attractive no money down loans - Perhaps one way to explore the matter is to examine OTHER types of loans, and see who in their right mind would issue 5 year no money down loans on such HIGH valued products. Airplanes ? Boats ? Cars ? Perhaps a car loan would be a good place to start. WHO would lend ANYONE 250k to buy a car - no money down, 5 yrs, no interest, no income check etc. hmmm - that one spells it all out. Fraud with Intent.

July 1, 2008 at 6:17 am

DrZoidberg

More so if people have been living rent free for 5 years ? in nice big 250k to 500k homes ? No money down - No interest payments till 5 years later ? I have only one question and it's a scary one. Were they allowed to draw on home equity ? Is there really a TWO times multiplier in this game of pinball ? I use pinball borrowing from Jerzy Kosinski's book Pinball where one reference to the title is made in the book 'Pinball, you never know what's going to happen next'. is it possible that we not only see the loss of the home as a product - at 400k + depreciation ? BUT - another 400k in HELOC's taken out on it ? My God.

July 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

DrZoidberg

Question to Elizabeth MacDonald... Did you ever find Bear Stearns to be a heavy consumer of this 'toxic waste' as I think you put it accurately - regarding these resets that will start showing up in 2010 ? 2011 ? I think the most responsible thing to do is that a task force be formed to track down this 'toxic waste' and prepare for the defaults - perhaps even with penalties extended BACK to who SENT the toxic waste loan products. The FDIC as you point out says reset, and you say 'default' I tend to agree, why should anyone expect it won't default ? I think it would be foolish to NOT address the expected defaults coming. Legally ? perhaps there can be accountability through indictments - some to mine for more information, some prosecution. If an effort ISN'T made to aid in discovery as to who did what when (we know the why, at least my intuition says as to the why) ? I think we'll have far more than just one or two investment banks/firms like Bear Stearns find themselves with more on sheet balances in red than not. Maybe you can do some more pieces on what YOU think should or could be done to remedy these anticipated - not too far off in the future - write downs coming ? I see innercitypress.org bring data together, and 'basic' observations as to questionable activity - but to date I haven't found any other source than you that's on this matter with such clarity. I hope you continue to get closer to the truth and share more insights backed with data.

June 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm

beholder

you can not unstain something that was so much toxic, not even with 29b free tax payers $. I am eager to see how they plan to clean all that mess that their greed created. Ben bought them some time but not near enough and grim collector is coming with bill. The Truth is to black for all of us, in the previous period to much money went to money haven, and no FED's mumbojumbo can resurected it. They can print as much as they want, but real money backed with real value assetes has just vaneshed and when oil baloon bursts (as next BS) the foundetion of this new age economy will be rocked. I think that old greek saying goes fromm nothing comes nothing...

June 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Diggy Zazz

This is legitimized robbery. We've heard the "too big to fail" argument for these rich-boy bailouts before. It's the same swindle that Greenspan pulled to rescue Long Term Capital Management in the late '90's. I love the way that the neocon Fed chiefs preach the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism until some of their own are in danger of missing out on their $40 million Xmas bonuses. Then, it's big government to the rescue in a way that even th leftmost of liberals never envisioned.

June 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Robert Canella

Wow... This is enlightening...we see the FED backing with Taxpayer dollars a deal to save a private equity company...then the FED takes profits on the deal...Dimon saying we don't think the collateral is worth anything at all. Nice deal! Next we see the "Friends of Angelo" getting deals from Countrywide/ B of A then offering more tax payer guarantees to the banks thru the DODD/SHELBY morgtgage bill...sure wouldn't want the banks to end up footing the bill for this mess! By the time this is over, I am afraid our children's children will be working 'till Christmas every year just to pay off the tax debts we are chalking up...gotta love those bankers and the FED!!! At least some real American's getting involved to get some attention to this non-sense. I understand there is a rally going on today (7/27) in Washington DC from a group called FED-UP USA... http://fedupusa.org

June 27, 2008 at 12:50 pm

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

most popular posts