|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Bear Stearns funds collapse hits subprime securities market
By Nick Beams
21 June 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The major investment and brokerage firm Merrill Lynch is going
ahead with a sale of $850 million worth of financial assets seized
from two troubled hedge funds controlled by another major Wall
Street firm Bear Stearns.
The confrontation between the two Wall Street giants started
to unfold on Tuesday following news that the two hedge funds,
set up only 10 months ago, were experiencing sharp falls in the
valuation of their assets.
Initial reports suggest there is interest from other investors
in purchasing the assets, consisting mainly of collateral-backed
debt obligations, mostly related to subprime mortgages. Provided
buyers can be found, the sale process is expected to proceed smoothly.
But if the assets have to be liquidated at so-called fire
sale prices this could trigger turbulence across financial
markets.
The decision to sell came after the rejection of a plan by
Bear Stearns to save the funds. Under the plan, Bear Stearns would
have put up $1.5 billion with other banks contributing $500 million
in new equity to meet margin calls. In return, creditors would
have had to agree not to make margin calls for another 12 months.
Merrill Lynch apparently rejected the plan because it felt
that over a period of 12 months the market could move against
the Bear Stearns investments.
The collapse of the two funds is symptomatic of problems in
US financial markets caused by the fall off in the housing market,
which has exposed the risky financing operations undertaken during
the housing boom. It is estimated that since 2000 Wall Street
has created more than $1.8 trillion worth of securities backed
by subprime mortgages.
Now with the national median home price set to show the first
annual decline since the Great Depression and the stock of unsold
homes at a record 4.2 million, Wall Street firms, which have invested
heavily in mortgage-backed securities, are beginning to feel the
effects.
Goldman Sachs, the worlds biggest securities firm, and
Bear Stearns, the largest underwriter of mortgage-backed securities
in 2006, have both reported that the increase in foreclosures
has hit their profits. Bear Stearns said profits fell 10 percent,
while Goldman Sachs reported a 1 percent gain, the smallest increase
for three quarters.
The brief history of the failed Bear Stearns hedge funds is
indicative of the way in which the market pressure to accumulate
ever-greater profits leads to increasingly risky ventures.
The two fundsHigh-Grade Structured Credit Strategies
Enhanced Leverage Fund and the High Grade Structured Credit Strategies
Fundwere set up by Bear Stearns just 10 months ago.
As the length of their names indicates, they were to be engaged
in highly complex operations in the securities markets. But while
the methods were complicated, the underlying profit plan was simple:
the aim was to borrow a large amount of money to make big bets
on the sub-prime mortgage backed securities market. The market
has seen an increasing degree of turbulence in the recent period
because of the increased level of mortgage defaults by high-risk
borrowers.
The funds manager, Ralph Cioffi, described by the Financial
Times as having a stellar reputation, apparently
believed that collaterised debt obligations (CDOs) backed by subprime
mortgages would start to increase in value over the longer term
following their recent decline.
With Bear Stearns, one of the biggest operators in the mortgage
business, and given Cioffis reputation, money for the funds
was not hard to come by. Some of the worlds biggest finance
companies, including Citigroup, Barclays, Merrill Lynch, Goldman
Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Bank of America extended
as much as $9 billion in credit. The funds also raised around
$600 million in equity from investors, including $40 million from
Bear Stearns and its executives.
Problems started to emerge last month when Enhanced Leverage
reported that its value fell 6.75 percent in April after its bets
in the mortgage market had gone wrong. Two weeks later it reported
that the loss was 18 percent, sending a shiver of fear through
investors.
The sudden increase in the loss estimate indicates the inherent
valuation problems in the complex derivatives markets in which
the funds were dealing.
As an article in Wednesdays edition of the Wall Street
Journal explained: Unlike stocks and Treasury bonds,
whose prices are continually quoted and easily explained, many
of these derivative instruments trade infrequently and dont
have clear market prices. To come up with market values for these
investmentsa process known as marking their
positions to marketinvestment funds often rely on their
own valuation models.
They might also ask the dealers who sell them the bonds
to update them on changes in the bonds underlying value.
When there are no sales to base prices on, dealers come up with
prices based on their own statistical models and an array of assumptions
about whats happening in the market or the assets that back
the securities.
This means that there can be some very rapid shifts in valuations.
A market value in normal times may be very different
from one obtained in a period of stressand the transition
from one period to another can take place quickly.
According to the Wall Street Journal, there has been
no indication that Bear Stearnss managers sought to
mislead lenders or investors about the value of the funds. Indeed,
the firms approach to valuing its securities seems to be
in line with guidelines set up by Moodys Investor Service,
which evaluates hedge-fund practices. But this crisis does point
to the kinds of valuation problems hedge funds and their investors
can run into, even when they follow sound practices.
These words bring to mind the collapse of the Long Term Capital
Management (LTCM) hedge fund in 1998. LTCM also followed sound
practicesits valuation and pricing model was designed
by Nobel laureatesbut an unexpected shift in currency market
valuations led to the collapse of the fund, necessitating a $3
billion bailout organised by the then Federal Reserve Board chairman
Alan Greenspan in order to prevent a meltdown of the financial
system.
Since the LTCM collapse, the spreading of risk had made markets
less vulnerable to the collapse of a single fund. But as Financial
Times commentator Gillian Tett observed: Although the
financial system has absorbed isolated failures, no one
knows what might happen with a string of collapses.
See Also:
Big fall on Wall Street as
mortgage debt problems grow
[14 March 2007]
Wild swings on Wall Street
[2 March 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |