Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

    Bringing Down Bear Stearns

    On Monday, March 10, Wall Street was tense, as it had been for months. The mortgage market had crashed; major companies like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch had written off billions of dollars in bad loans. In what the economists called a “credit crisis,” the big banks were so spooked they had all but stopped lending money, a trend which, if it continued, would spell disaster on 21st-century Wall Street, where trading firms routinely borrow as much as 50 times the cash in their accounts to trade complex financial instruments such as derivatives.

    Still, as he drove in from his Connecticut home to the glass-sheathed Midtown Manhattan headquarters of Bear Stearns, Sam Molinaro wasn’t expecting trouble. Molinaro, 50, Bear’s popular chief financial officer, thought he could spot the first rays of daylight at the end of nine solid months of nonstop crisis. The nation’s fifth-largest investment bank, known for its notoriously freewheeling—some would say maverick—culture, Bear had pledged to fork over more than $3 billion the previous summer to bail out one of its two hedge funds that had bet heavily on subprime loans. At the time, rumors flew it would go bankrupt. Bear’s swashbuckling C.E.O., 74-year-old Jimmy Cayne, pilloried as a detached figure who played bridge and rounds of golf while his firm was in crisis, had been ousted in January. His replacement, an easygoing 58-year-old investment banker named Alan Schwartz, was down at the Breakers resort in Palm Beach that morning, rubbing elbows with News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch and Viacom’s Sumner Redstone at Bear’s annual media conference.

    It was an uneventful morning—at first. Molinaro sat in his sixth-floor corner office, overlooking Madison Avenue, catching up on paperwork after a week-long trip visiting European investors. Then, around 11, something happened. Exactly what, no one knows to this day. But Bear’s stock began to fall. It was then, questioning his trading desks downstairs, that Molinaro first heard the rumor: Bear was having liquidity troubles, Wall Street’s way of saying the firm was running out of money. Molinaro made a face. This was crazy. There was no liquidity problem. Bear had about $18 billion in cash reserves.
    .
    .
    .
    (contd)
    I have referenced this affair elsewhere

    Also from Deep Capture

    All in all, this is a pretty good article. But it could have done more to describe the full scope of “the greatest financial scandal in history,” noting that this scandal has touched hundreds of other companies, and that its most worrying component, ignored by the financial press, is the sale of billions of dollars worth of phantom stock. More than 13 million shares of Bear Stearns stock that was sold on the day of Faber’s bombshell was not delivered on time – no doubt because the stock did not exist.

    So who provided that bogus tip to Faber? Who sold all the phantom stock? Who killed Bear Stearns?

    Further down, Vanity Fair reports:

    According to one vague tale, initially picked up at Lehman Brothers, a group of hedge-fund managers actually celebrated Bear’s collapse at a breakfast that following Sunday morning and planned a similar assault on Lehman the next week. True or not, Bear executives repeated the story to the S.E.C., along with the names of the three firms it suspects were behind its demise. Two are hedge funds, Chicago-based Citadel, run by a trader named Ken Griffin, and SAC Capital Partners of Stamford, Connecticut, run by Steven Cohen. (A spokesman for SAC Capital said the firm “vehemently denies” any suggestion that it played a role in Bear’s demise. A Citadel spokeswoman said, “These claims have no merit.”)

    I think it’s wrong to point a finger at Ken Griffin of Citadel. My initial reporting suggests that Griffin was not even short Bear Stearns. Also, Griffin’s rivals routinely throw his name around – usually when they are trying to distract attention from their own misdeeds.

    It will be up to the SEC and DOJ to indentify the true culprits, but perhaps they could start by interviewing the hedge fund managers who were short Bear Stearns. These include Griffin rivals David Einhorn, Jim Chanos, Dan Loeb (who once vowed to go “to war” against Griffin), and, yes, Steve Cohen.

    As described in “The Story of Deep Capture,” all of these hedge fund managers are in some way closely connected to CNBC’s Jim Cramer. They routinely conduct gang tackles on companies, employing the services of a small, but influential group of financial journalists, most of whom are also connected in some way to Jim Cramer – himself a former hedge fund manager.
    Last edited by Rajiv; June 30, 2008, 09:11 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

    So rumors surface that this IB isn't credit worthy. This causes a withdrawal of credit. The run forces a buyout where analysts pore over the books and determine... it's not a good buy.

    Emperor processes through town in the buff. Someone suggests he's not regally clothed but just plain naked. Everyone checks with their own eyes and sure enough he's simply naked.

    Isn't this the upshot of the article?

    If there was a crime this article doesn't seem to have uncovered it. Sure the 2$ a share price reflects the shotgun nature of the deal and is later re-adjusted up. (I heard from a friend at the time who knows people at Bear that it was worth $10 just on its real estate (cough.)) But the lack of colour in the article with regard to why buyers got cold feet beyond the time constraints and size of the deal seems ridiculous set against the claim of a criminal cabal of shorters. They were right!

    Without meaning any dis-respect to Rajiv for posting it, the message of this article to me is this: if nothing - not even the implosion and tax payer bail out of a major western financial institution - will provoke any curiosity among the chattering classes (represented by Vanity Fair's readers) about how these firms make (or lose) money, then we deserve all the Enrons we get.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

      If rumors and shorts are enough to collapse your business, the rumors and shorts were not the problem.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

        We get paid by the word here Mr Munger. Please elaborate a little.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

          I suggest you see Dr Patrick Byrne's presentation on naked short selling here

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

            Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
            Bringing Down Bear Stearns

            I have referenced this affair elsewhere

            Also from Deep Capture
            The hedge funds can't exist without the leverage the prime brokers provide. If this is anywhere near true, then it's got to be the most profitable example of "biting the hand that feeds you" in history.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

              See also another presentation by Patrick Byrne

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

                Originally posted by oddlots View Post
                We get paid by the word here Mr Munger. Please elaborate a little.
                Long story short ;), they were gambling with a lot more money than they had. This money was loaned to them against pieces of paper that weren't worth as much as they said they were. Most people probably knew this but looked the other way as long as they got paid, figuring they could get paid now and get out before the dumb money. When the blanket started to unravel the smart (insider) money pulled out; the unraveling accelerated.

                Lesson: don't gamble with (a lot) more money than you have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

                  Originally posted by CharlesTMunger View Post
                  Lesson: don't gamble with (a lot) more money than you have.
                  Then the entire Financial Industry is in trouble! :mad:

                  That is what all derivatives are about -- Gambling with more money than you have -- in other words borrowed stuff - and sometimes if you have read the articles referred to -- stuff that is fabricated out of thin air with nothing to back it up!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

                    .
                    Last edited by Nervous Drake; January 19, 2015, 01:30 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

                      From the Sakowicz article

                      On Wall Street, you can bet on anything that goes into the pricing structure of anything else that is formally traded as a registered security.

                      Currently, some derivatives are exchange-traded, but most are not. Most trade in secret, in markets called dealer markets, and there are many more flavors of derivatives than Baskin-Robbins ever had ice cream flavors.

                      I'll pick just one letter of the alphabet. How about C? Here are just a few flavors of derivatives beginning with the letter C: calendar spreads, capital guarantees, cash-flow matches, collateralized debt obligation, commodity ticks, constant maturity swaps, constant proportion portfolio insurance, contango, contracts for difference, correlation trades, credit default swaps, credit default swap indexes, credit derivatives, credit spreads on bonds, credit spreads on options, credit spread warrants, currency futures and currency swaps.

                      That's just one letter of the alphabet. The total value of derivatives in the derivative markets beginning just with the letter C is in the many trillions of dollars.

                      Swaps are a type of derivative. In a swap, two parties agree to exchange one stream of cash flow for another stream of cash flow generated by underlying assets. Those cash flow streams are called "legs."

                      These cash flows are calculated as coming from what's called a "notional principal amount." The notional principal amount is usually backed by a real asset, like a bond. (But lately, a lot of junk wants to be called bonds.) Other words for popular bond-type investments in today's Wall Street parlance are CMOs (collateralized mortgage obligations), CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) and SIVs (structured investment vehicles).

                      But it's not always a bond or bond wannabe that backs a swap. It could be a basket of foreign currencies. It could be a basket of commodities. Assets indexed to the price of oil are very popular right now, as oil is extremely volatile and hitting new highs almost every day.

                      The important thing about some of the underlying swap assets is that they can be exotic or opaque. These particularly weird assets are usually thinly traded or hard to value, and sometimes they are nearly worthless, although this is often not immediately obvious. Regardless, the underlying asset backing a swap must throw off streams of cash or cash equivalents, at least in the beginning—that's why they're called legs. But legs slow down. Sometimes they stop. Ideally, legs work together, like the legs of a centipede. But sometimes, the centipede goes spastic.

                      As the assets behind swaps are usually not exchanged between the parties, swaps can create an unfunded exposure with respect to the underlying asset or principal amount. Parties can earn profits or losses from the price movements of the assets without ever actually having to own or control them or post a penny in collateral for the notional value of the asset.

                      When used properly, swaps can be used to hedge against certain risks, like big fluctuations in interest rates. They can also be a sort of insurance against companies going bankrupt and their bonds going into default.

                      When used improperly, swaps can be used to irresponsibly speculate without ever having to put up any real cash and they can be used to manipulate markets in gross and ugly ways.

                      Here's a particularly gross and ugly example pulled from a British Bankers Association report. The case study cited in the report is now used at the CFA Institute to train certified financial analysts. Here's why I've come to equate swaps and derivatives with lies and secrets: "The market for credit derivatives is now so large that in many instances the dollar amount for credit derivatives outstanding for a particular bond issue is vastly greater than the actual value of the bonds outstanding. For example, Company X may have $1 billion in outstanding debt and $10 billion in credit derivatives outstanding. If such a company were to default, and the recovery to creditors was only 40 cents on the dollar, then the loss to the investors holding the bonds would be $600 million. However, the loss to the sellers of the credit derivatives would be $6 billion.

                      "Considering this amplification effect, unethical executives could engineer the bankruptcy of their own company, and thus, arrange for their company to needlessly default on their bonds so as to collect on their credit derivatives contracts in secret, offshore accounts. The trick to pulling this fraud off is that the bankruptcy must be sudden and unexpected, with unavoidable loss in the company's bonds."

                      Sounds a lot like Bear Stearns, doesn't it?

                      Since their demise, I have heard from more than one credible source that the bankruptcy of Bear Stearns was a highly sophisticated pump-and-dump scheme. While the Bear Stearns bailout probably cost the American taxpayer something like $35 billion, Bear Stearns held credit default contracts carrying an outstanding value of $2.5 trillion.

                      Gulp.

                      Regardless of the $35 billion price tag, the rescue at Bear Stearns did nothing but buy time. The rescue did nothing to protect the broader economic system. One could even argue that the federal government's intervention will ultimately encourage riskier, more speculative behavior on Wall Street. Maybe even corrupt, criminal behavior.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vanity Fair: the greatest financial scandal in history

                        Originally posted by Nervous Drake View Post
                        This implies all these companies were reliant on Bear Stearn's liabilities. But any bank who is going to go under has liabilities that will be dissolved with it. So are we talking about other investment banks and financial institutions relying on Bear Stearns liabilities to survive?
                        In a certain sense, yes. Think about and look at the area of derivative counter parties.




                        Originally posted by Nervous Drake View Post
                        Was Bear Stearns target practice? I still don't understand why other investment banks did not experience a similar demise. Bear Stearns, the lone ranger. And it went down because of naked shorting? How is that even conceivable? This does not make sense to me.
                        There is an element of target practice in my opinion due to Bear's refusal to participate in the LTCM fix about 10 years ago.

                        Other investment banks have taken large beatings in their values & stocks, and there's more to come.

                        Naked shorting was likely one of the methods used, but the primary cause in my opinion was a combination of them being fundamentally weak and that insiders, big traders and Bear's enemies managed to affect sentiment & confidence in them... and it became a self fulfilling "prophecy".
                        http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X