News Bear Stearns likely goes bankrupt

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Bear Stearns is facing a severe liquidity crisis, prompting the firm to seek emergency financing from the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan, leading to a dramatic 45% drop in its stock price. The company's CEO, Alan Schwartz, previously denied any liquidity issues, raising concerns about transparency and potential insider trading among executives. Analysts suggest that Bear Stearns' business model, heavily reliant on the mortgage market, is fundamentally broken, and there are fears of bankruptcy. The situation has sparked broader worries about the stability of other financial institutions, with comparisons being made to historical financial panics. The ongoing crisis highlights the fragility of confidence in financial markets and the implications of government bailouts for mismanaged companies.
  • #61
Astronuc said:
If the stockholders reject JPMorgan's overture, then perhaps BSC can recover!
That would be an interesting twist. I don't know what to make of that possibility.
So this is a repeat of the Enron situation? Why was this allowed to happen - again?
No, what they are describing is nothing like Enron. What they are saying is that JP Morgan may have orchestrated BS's demise. It may have all been a takeover ploy. The liquidity crisis was triggered in part by banks not lending BS money like they usually do. Some of that may have been retaliation for BS not playing ball when others needed loans. But JP Morgan may have thought - hey, if we can rock these guys a little, they might collapse temporarily and we can pick them up before they bounce back (figuring the FED wouldn't let them actually fail).

But that isn't to say there weren't some illegal activities going on either at BS or by JP Morgan. What makes that possibility more interesting than ENRON is that when ENRON died, they just locked the doors and everyone went home. With BS, the company still exists and functions. If there was any kind of fraud in the takeover, the crime is ongoing. But what could the SEC do after the fact? I'm not sure you can un-merge the companies if the takeover was found to be illegal.

Other potential illegalities are what Greg mentioned - some people seemed to know this was coming and made money off that information. And, of course, the sub-prime mess itself still needs to be figured out. I tend to doubt (like with the S&L's) that much crime will be uncovered, just flaws in the way the industry works. Ie, the comment made in an article about BS's CEO being asleep at the wheel.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
russ_watters said:
That would be an interesting twist. I don't know what to make of that possibility. No, what they are describing is nothing like Enron. What they are saying is that JP Morgan may have orchestrated BS's demise. It may have all been a takeover ploy.
Apparently some folks are comparing what happened with BSC (and possibly other places) with Enron, i.e. the financial shenanigans.

Here is a good overview of what happened at BSC. JPM and Fed stepped in after the fact. Now, the question is - did folks at JPM (or others) initiate rumors in the hopes of causing the failure of BSC - a rival?

The Week That Shook Wall Street:
Inside the Demise of Bear Stearns
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120580966534444395.html (period of availability unknown)
By ROBIN SIDEL, GREG IP, MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and KATE KELLY
March 18, 2008; Page A1

The past six days have shaken American capitalism.

Between Tuesday, when financial markets began turning against Bear Stearns Cos., and Sunday night, when the bank disappeared into the arms of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Washington policy makers, federal regulators and Wall Street bankers struggled to keep the trouble from tanking financial markets and exacerbating the country's deep economic uncertainty.

The mood changed daily, as did the apparent scope of the problem. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson thought markets would be calmed by the announcement that the Federal Reserve had agreed to help bail out Bear Stearns. President Bush gave a reassuring speech that day about the fundamental soundness of the U.S. economy. By Saturday, however, Mr. Paulson had become convinced that a definitive agreement to sell Bear Stearns had to be inked before markets opened yesterday.

Bear Stearns's board of directors was whipsawed by the rapidly unfolding events, in particular by the pressure from Washington to clinch a deal, says one person familiar with their deliberations.

"We thought they gave us 28 days," this person says, in reference to the terms of the Fed's bailout financing. "Then they gave us 24 hours."

In the end, Washington more or less threw its rule book out the window. The Fed, which has been at the forefront of the government response, made a number of unprecedented moves. Among other things, it agreed to temporarily remove from circulation a big chunk of difficult-to-trade securities and to offer direct loans to Wall Street investment banks for the first time.

The terms of the Bear Stearns sale contained some highly unusual features. For one, J.P. Morgan retains the option to purchase Bear's valuable headquarters building in midtown Manhattan, even if Bear's board recommends a rival offer. Also, the Fed has taken responsibility for $30 billion in hard-to-trade securities on Bear Stearns's books, with potential for both profit and loss.

. . . .

Tuesday, March 11

On Tuesday, officials unveiled what they thought came close: a promise to lend up to $200 billion in Treasury bonds to investment banks for 28 days. In return, the Treasury would get securities backed by home mortgages, whose uncertain values helped spark the current crisis, and other hard-to-trade collateral. The first swap was scheduled for March 27. At first, the firms were elated. [This is action prompted the Dow to rise 400 pts]

. . . .

At Bear Stearns, Chief Financial Officer Samuel Molinaro, along with company lawyers and Treasurer Robert Upton, were trying to make sense of the situation. They felt comfortable with their capital base of roughly $17 billion and were looking forward to reporting Bear Stearns's first-quarter earnings, which had been respectable amid the market carnage.

One theory began developing internally: Hedge funds with short positions on Bear -- bets that the company's stock would fall -- were trying to speed the decline by spreading negative rumors.

. . . .

Thursday, March 13

On Thursday evening, after customers had continued to pull their money out of Bear Stearns, the bank reached out to J. P. Morgan, looking to discuss ways the Wall Street giant could help ease Bear's cash crunch.

By then, Bear Stearns's cash position had dwindled to just $2 billion. In a conference call at 7:30 p.m., officials at Bear Stearns and the Securities and Exchange Commission told Fed and Treasury officials that the firm saw little option other than to file for bankruptcy protection the next morning.

Bear Stearns's hope was that the Fed would make a loan from its discount window to provide several weeks of breathing room. That, the firm hoped, would perhaps halt a run on the bank by allowing it to swap bonds for the cash necessary to return to customers.

The Fed's standard preference in dealing with a troubled institution is to first seek a private-sector solution, such as a sale or financing agreement. But the possibility of a bankruptcy filing Friday morning created a hard deadline.

A trigger point was looming for Bear Stearns in the so-called repo market, where banks and securities firms extend and receive short-term loans, typically made overnight and backed by securities. At 7:30 a.m., Bear Stearns would have to begin paying back some of its billions of dollars in repo borrowings. If the firm didn't repay the money on time, its creditors could start selling the collateral Bear had pledged to them. The implications went well beyond Bear Stearns: If other investors questioned the safety of loans they made in the repo market, they could start to withhold funds from other investment banks and companies.

The $4.5 trillion repo market isn't a newfangled innovation like subprime-backed collateralized debt obligations. It is a decades-old, plain-vanilla market critical to the smooth functioning of capital markets. A default by a major counterparty would have been unprecedented, and could have had unpredictable consequences for the entire market.

. . . .
 
  • #63
There are a lot rumors about exactly who may have instigated the BSC problem. The article below ,among other things, points the finger at the FED itself.


For Bear, the final nail in the coffin came not from Wall Street, but from the government. After the Fed agreed to give Bear a lifeline on Friday, it became clear that the market still wasn’t prepared to do business with the firm.

The Fed was going to be on the hook Monday morning for untold billions, and it was already taking heat for using taxpayer money to backstop a private institution that had hardly been a model citizen. Bear deserved to be punished for its reckless behavior, some said. So the government, led by Henry M. Paulson, the Treasury secretary (and the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, for you conspiracy theorists), put a gun to Bear’s head: take a deal with JPMorgan or file for bankruptcy. It was a perfect antidote to the “moral hazard” argument — Bear’s employees would lose their jobs, and shareholders would lose their shirts, but the financial markets would be saved, at least for another day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/b...em&ex=1205985600&en=b8d80fdeb9e67c71&ei=5087
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
That would be an interesting twist. I don't know what to make of that possibility. No, what they are describing is nothing like Enron. What they are saying is that JP Morgan may have orchestrated BS's demise.

Interesting idea... I know the BS was not very popular and many people enjoyed seeing it fall (well they would have enjoyed it if they weren't scared witless that is...).
 
  • #65
The story continues

Commentary: Brokerage owes J.P. Morgan, not the other way around

. . . .

Here's what matters: on March 16 Alan Schwartz, the chief executive of Bear Stearns, faced the certainty that when the broker opened its doors the next day it would fail. Without the Federal Reserve's backing and J.P. Morgan's pledge, Bear Stearns today would be a case number in bankruptcy court.

Bear Stearns brought this upon itself, not J.P. Morgan.

That's the cold truth that the Bear Stearns board of directors, including Schwartz and Chairman Jimmy Cayne, faced a few days ago. Sure, the current environment seems rosier now, but that's because Bear already is part of J.P. Morgan.

Saving the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of Bear employees and paying anything at all for a broker that may have been wiped out in a day isn't enough for some.
Bondholders are reportedly buying Bear stock to sway the shareholder vote on the deal, according to reports. They want assurances from J.P. Morgan and the Fed that they will honor the debt.

Shareholders including Joseph Lewis who owned nearly 10% of Bear Stearns as recently as last year, can't be blamed for trying to get more. There are reports that some employees are trying to line up investors, and Lewis said he will vote against the deal. Another investor, Bruce Sherman, reportedly has complained to Bear officials about the deal. They want to renegotiate.

. . . . .
 
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
Are they just pulling these numbers out of a hat?
It's back-alley bargaining - you offer what you think you can get. But it definitely seems like JP Morgan made an offer that BS accepted out of duress and now that the panic moment has passed, the offer no longer seems reasonable.

Regarding Astronuc's article, I disagree very strongly with the premise (though not necessarily the conclusion - I don't know that we know enough about what happened yet): the events leading up to any big event always matter, whether we're talking history, economics, science, anything. Context is critical for evaluating what really happened. If JP Morgan orchestrated BS's collapse, the fact that they caught it before it hit the ground doesn't make them heroes, it still makes them villans.
 
  • #68
I heard this morning that JPMC is apparently concerned about a rival offer. BSC is still down 90% from it's high, but $10/share is certainly better than $2/share.
 
  • #69
BSC stock went up almost immediatly after the original buyout offer. I would imagine that BSC stock will go up again now that the offer has been increased.

Bear Stearns shares jumped $5.29, or 89 percent, to $11.25, while JPMorgan rose 58 cents to $46.55.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

edit It appears that BSC stock has already gone up again.
 
  • #70
Force fed by the Fed
Commentary: Bear Stearns 'bailout' may just save Main Street

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- If you're thinking about refinancing your mortgage, getting a loan to buy a new car, or switching to a lower-interest rate credit card, you can thank the Federal Reserve for your ability to do so.

You might also want to mention that the recent boost to your 401(k) portfolio is appreciated as well.

Though it may not be obvious, anyone who participates in the credit world -- and that's most of us -- owes the Fed a debt of gratitude for stepping in and helping to prevent the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos.

Populist class wars are convenient for politicians such Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or anyone who claims this deal is for Wall Street fat cats. But class and privilege don't float as good explanations for the Fed's $30 billion bailout of Bear.

Alan Schwartz, the chief executive of Bear Stearns, replaced Jimmy Cayne apparently after Cayne was sacked for getting stoned and playing bridge while two of BSC's funds collapsed. Oooops! Cayne denied smoking pot.

James Cayne lashes back at WSJ report
Bear Stearns CEO played in bridge tournament, without phone or e-mail access, as Bear Stearns hedge fund collapse sparked credit crisis: report.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/bearstearns_ceo/index.htm

The Jimmy Cayne Takedown
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/the-jimmy-cayne-takedown/
Bear Stearns chief executive James Cayne is apt to be the talk of Wall Street on Thursday, as industry insiders gape over a long, unflattering and at times highly gossipy profile of him in The Wall Street Journal. The account, which tops 3,000 words and makes repeated use of unnamed sources, portrays him as an out-of-touch leader with a penchant for pot smoking who is more interested in his bridge and golf games than tending to his firm’s recent crises.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
6K