Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Hedge Fund Manager: Goodbye
Andrew Lahde, manager of a small California hedge fund, Lahde Capital, burst into the spotlight last year after his one-year-old fund returned 866 percent betting against the subprime collapse.
Last month, he did the unthinkable -- he shut things down, claiming dealing with his bank counterparties had become too risky. Today, Lahde passed along his "goodbye" letter, a rollicking missive on everything from greed to economic philosophy. Enjoy:
Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.
Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.
There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.
I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.
So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.
Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.
Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won't see it included in BP's, "Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions," television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM's similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country?
Ah, the female. The evil female plant -- marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let's stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.
With that I say good-bye and good luck.
All the best,
Andrew Lahde
Last month, he did the unthinkable -- he shut things down, claiming dealing with his bank counterparties had become too risky. Today, Lahde passed along his "goodbye" letter, a rollicking missive on everything from greed to economic philosophy. Enjoy:
Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.
Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.
There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.
I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.
So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.
I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.
On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.
Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.
Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won't see it included in BP's, "Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions," television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM's similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country?
Ah, the female. The evil female plant -- marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let's stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.
With that I say good-bye and good luck.
All the best,
Andrew Lahde
Friday, October 17, 2008
More from Warren Buffet
Warren Buffet explains why he’s overweighting US stocks in his PA. Anyone that has watched hockey can relate to his (Gretsky’s) advice to “skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.” This from the New York Times.
THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.
So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.
Why?
A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.
A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.
Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.
You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.
Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.
Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”
I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.
Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.
THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.
So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.
Why?
A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.
A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.
Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.
You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.
Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.
Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”
I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.
Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Everybody is panic selling except Warren B.
Warren Buffet is famous for saying:
Be fearful when everybody is greedy and greedy when everybody is fearful.
Everybody is fearful right now.
It is intriguing when the greatest investor of our times has been on a buying spree and yet the markets have just had the worst week in 7 years per CNBC. The herd mentality in the financial markets continues to live strong. After all, we're just now coming off commodity and real estate bubbles. Why not have an overdone stock market sell-off?
Below are the highlights of the recent Buffett purchases:
* 9/19: MidAmerican Energy and Constellation Energy (CEG) reached a definitive merger agreement in which MidAmerican will purchase all of the outstanding shares of Constellation Energy for a cash consideration of approximately $4.7 billion, or $26.50 per share. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) owns 87.4% of MidAmerican.
* 9/23: Berkshire Hathaway is paying $5 billion for Goldman Sachs (GS) preferred shares that pay a 10% dividend. Berkshire also gets the right to pay $5 billion more in Goldman common shares at $115 each.
* 9/29: MidAmerican Energy today announced it has agreed to purchase 225 million shares, representing approximately a 10 percent interest, in BYD Company Limited (1211.hk). The investment is valued at 1.8 billion HK dollars, or approximately $230 million U.S. dollars.
* 10/1: Berkshire Hathaway agreed to buy $3 billion of preferred General Electric (GE) stock. This stock pays a generous dividend of 10%. On top of that, Berkshire gets the option to buy $3 billion of GE common stock at $22.25 per share, well under the current trading price of around $25 a share.
* 10/3: Wells Fargo (WFC) said early Friday that it would pay 0.1991 of a share of common stock in exchange for each common share of Wachovia Bank (WB) in a deal worth $15B. Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder of WFC.
That's a potential for over $30B in deals with up to $16B in cash.
News by Bloomberg of the worst month ever for hedge funds in September might be a big reason for such a negative market this last week. As those redemptions come in the market might have faced a lot of forced selling this week. After all, we know the rescue plan passed on Friday should have been net positive to the market. Friday's action after the passage in the House smelled of desperate hedge funds attempting to sell at the best valuation they could get prior to redemption payments.
Warren Buffett may have been early in the market, but anyone would be surprised to see him down much on any of his investments. Of course, his cash deals with GE and GS were clearly better deals than any small investor could get, but it's hard to see why anybody would be a net seller when Buffett has gone on a widespread buying spree. Buffett has even come out on more than one occasion and stated that the rescue bill approved on Friday would likely be profitable to the government. Yet, most taxpayers are overwhelmingly negative on the bill.
Be fearful when everybody is greedy and greedy when everybody is fearful.
Everybody is fearful right now.
It is intriguing when the greatest investor of our times has been on a buying spree and yet the markets have just had the worst week in 7 years per CNBC. The herd mentality in the financial markets continues to live strong. After all, we're just now coming off commodity and real estate bubbles. Why not have an overdone stock market sell-off?
Below are the highlights of the recent Buffett purchases:
* 9/19: MidAmerican Energy and Constellation Energy (CEG) reached a definitive merger agreement in which MidAmerican will purchase all of the outstanding shares of Constellation Energy for a cash consideration of approximately $4.7 billion, or $26.50 per share. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) owns 87.4% of MidAmerican.
* 9/23: Berkshire Hathaway is paying $5 billion for Goldman Sachs (GS) preferred shares that pay a 10% dividend. Berkshire also gets the right to pay $5 billion more in Goldman common shares at $115 each.
* 9/29: MidAmerican Energy today announced it has agreed to purchase 225 million shares, representing approximately a 10 percent interest, in BYD Company Limited (1211.hk). The investment is valued at 1.8 billion HK dollars, or approximately $230 million U.S. dollars.
* 10/1: Berkshire Hathaway agreed to buy $3 billion of preferred General Electric (GE) stock. This stock pays a generous dividend of 10%. On top of that, Berkshire gets the option to buy $3 billion of GE common stock at $22.25 per share, well under the current trading price of around $25 a share.
* 10/3: Wells Fargo (WFC) said early Friday that it would pay 0.1991 of a share of common stock in exchange for each common share of Wachovia Bank (WB) in a deal worth $15B. Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder of WFC.
That's a potential for over $30B in deals with up to $16B in cash.
News by Bloomberg of the worst month ever for hedge funds in September might be a big reason for such a negative market this last week. As those redemptions come in the market might have faced a lot of forced selling this week. After all, we know the rescue plan passed on Friday should have been net positive to the market. Friday's action after the passage in the House smelled of desperate hedge funds attempting to sell at the best valuation they could get prior to redemption payments.
Warren Buffett may have been early in the market, but anyone would be surprised to see him down much on any of his investments. Of course, his cash deals with GE and GS were clearly better deals than any small investor could get, but it's hard to see why anybody would be a net seller when Buffett has gone on a widespread buying spree. Buffett has even come out on more than one occasion and stated that the rescue bill approved on Friday would likely be profitable to the government. Yet, most taxpayers are overwhelmingly negative on the bill.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Things can change pretty quickly...
"It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of those transactions."
Joseph J. Cassano, a former A.I.G. executive back in August 2007
Joseph J. Cassano, a former A.I.G. executive back in August 2007
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Ben's testimony before the U.S. Senate
Testimony
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
U.S. financial markets
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
September 23, 2008
Chairman Bernanke presented identical testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on September 24, 2008
Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, and members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss recent developments in financial markets and the economy. As you know, the U.S. economy continues to confront substantial challenges, including a weakening labor market and elevated inflation. Notably, stresses in financial markets have been high and have recently intensified significantly. If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.
The downturn in the housing market has been a key factor underlying both the strained condition of financial markets and the slowdown of the broader economy. In the financial sphere, falling home prices and rising mortgage delinquencies have led to major losses at many financial institutions, losses only partially replaced by the raising of new capital. Investor concerns about financial institutions increased over the summer, as mortgage-related assets deteriorated further and economic activity weakened. Among the firms under the greatest pressure were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and, more recently, American International Group (AIG). As investors lost confidence in them, these companies saw their access to liquidity and capital markets increasingly impaired and their stock prices drop sharply.
The Federal Reserve believes that, whenever possible, such difficulties should be addressed through private-sector arrangements--for example, by raising new equity capital, by negotiations leading to a merger or acquisition, or by an orderly wind-down. Government assistance should be given with the greatest of reluctance and only when the stability of the financial system, and, consequently, the health of the broader economy, is at risk. In the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, capital raises of sufficient size appeared infeasible and the size and government-sponsored status of the two companies precluded a merger with or acquisition by another company. To avoid unacceptably large dislocations in the financial sector, the housing market, and the economy as a whole, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, and the Treasury used its authority, granted by the Congress in July, to make available financial support to the two firms. The Federal Reserve, with which FHFA consulted on the conservatorship decision as specified in the July legislation, supported these steps as necessary and appropriate. We have seen benefits of this action in the form of lower mortgage rates, which should help the housing market.
The Federal Reserve and the Treasury attempted to identify private-sector approaches to avoid the imminent failures of AIG and Lehman Brothers, but none was forthcoming. In the case of AIG, the Federal Reserve, with the support of the Treasury, provided an emergency credit line to facilitate an orderly resolution. The Federal Reserve took this action because it judged that, in light of the prevailing market conditions and the size and composition of AIG's obligations, a disorderly failure of AIG would have severely threatened global financial stability and, consequently, the performance of the U.S. economy. To mitigate concerns that this action would exacerbate moral hazard and encourage inappropriate risk-taking in the future, the Federal Reserve ensured that the terms of the credit extended to AIG imposed significant costs and constraints on the firm's owners, managers, and creditors. The chief executive officer has been replaced. The collateral for the loan is the company itself, together with its subsidiaries.1 (Insurance policyholders and holders of AIG investment products are, however, fully protected.) Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance of the loan at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points, implying a current interest rate over 11 percent. In addition, the U.S. government will receive equity participation rights corresponding to a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders, among other things.
In the case of Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury declined to commit public funds to support the institution. The failure of Lehman posed risks. But the troubles at Lehman had been well known for some time, and investors clearly recognized--as evidenced, for example, by the high cost of insuring Lehman's debt in the market for credit default swaps--that the failure of the firm was a significant possibility. Thus, we judged that investors and counterparties had had time to take precautionary measures.
While perhaps manageable in itself, Lehman's default was combined with the unexpectedly rapid collapse of AIG, which together contributed to the development last week of extraordinarily turbulent conditions in global financial markets. These conditions caused equity prices to fall sharply, the cost of short-term credit--where available--to spike upward, and liquidity to dry up in many markets. Losses at a large money market mutual fund sparked extensive withdrawals from a number of such funds. A marked increase in the demand for safe assets--a flight to quality--sent the yield on Treasury bills down to a few hundredths of a percent. By further reducing asset values and potentially restricting the flow of credit to households and businesses, these developments pose a direct threat to economic growth.
The Federal Reserve took a number of actions to increase liquidity and stabilize markets. Notably, to address dollar funding pressures worldwide, we announced a significant expansion of reciprocal currency arrangements with foreign central banks, including an approximate doubling of the existing swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank and the authorization of new swap facilities with the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Canada. We will continue to work closely with colleagues at other central banks to address ongoing liquidity pressures. The Federal Reserve also announced initiatives to assist money market mutual funds facing heavy redemptions and to increase liquidity in short-term credit markets.
Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by the Congress is urgently required to stabilize the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy. In this regard, the Federal Reserve supports the Treasury's proposal to buy illiquid assets from financial institutions. Purchasing impaired assets will create liquidity and promote price discovery in the markets for these assets, while reducing investor uncertainty about the current value and prospects of financial institutions. More generally, removing these assets from institutions’ balance sheets will help to restore confidence in our financial markets and enable banks and other institutions to raise capital and to expand credit to support economic growth.
At this juncture, in light of the fast-moving developments in financial markets, it is essential to deal with the crisis at hand. Certainly, the shortcomings and weaknesses of our financial markets and regulatory system must be addressed if we are to avoid a repetition of what has transpired in our financial markets over the past year. However, the development of a comprehensive proposal for reform would require careful and extensive analysis that would be difficult to compress into a short legislative timeframe now available. Looking forward, the Federal Reserve is committed to working closely with the Congress, the Administration, other federal regulators, and other stakeholders in developing a stronger, more resilient, and better regulated financial system.
Footnotes
1. Specifically, the loan is collateralized by all of the assets of the company and its primary non-regulated subsidiaries. These assets include the equity of substantially all of AIG's regulated subsidiaries.
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
U.S. financial markets
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
September 23, 2008
Chairman Bernanke presented identical testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on September 24, 2008
Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, and members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss recent developments in financial markets and the economy. As you know, the U.S. economy continues to confront substantial challenges, including a weakening labor market and elevated inflation. Notably, stresses in financial markets have been high and have recently intensified significantly. If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.
The downturn in the housing market has been a key factor underlying both the strained condition of financial markets and the slowdown of the broader economy. In the financial sphere, falling home prices and rising mortgage delinquencies have led to major losses at many financial institutions, losses only partially replaced by the raising of new capital. Investor concerns about financial institutions increased over the summer, as mortgage-related assets deteriorated further and economic activity weakened. Among the firms under the greatest pressure were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and, more recently, American International Group (AIG). As investors lost confidence in them, these companies saw their access to liquidity and capital markets increasingly impaired and their stock prices drop sharply.
The Federal Reserve believes that, whenever possible, such difficulties should be addressed through private-sector arrangements--for example, by raising new equity capital, by negotiations leading to a merger or acquisition, or by an orderly wind-down. Government assistance should be given with the greatest of reluctance and only when the stability of the financial system, and, consequently, the health of the broader economy, is at risk. In the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, capital raises of sufficient size appeared infeasible and the size and government-sponsored status of the two companies precluded a merger with or acquisition by another company. To avoid unacceptably large dislocations in the financial sector, the housing market, and the economy as a whole, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, and the Treasury used its authority, granted by the Congress in July, to make available financial support to the two firms. The Federal Reserve, with which FHFA consulted on the conservatorship decision as specified in the July legislation, supported these steps as necessary and appropriate. We have seen benefits of this action in the form of lower mortgage rates, which should help the housing market.
The Federal Reserve and the Treasury attempted to identify private-sector approaches to avoid the imminent failures of AIG and Lehman Brothers, but none was forthcoming. In the case of AIG, the Federal Reserve, with the support of the Treasury, provided an emergency credit line to facilitate an orderly resolution. The Federal Reserve took this action because it judged that, in light of the prevailing market conditions and the size and composition of AIG's obligations, a disorderly failure of AIG would have severely threatened global financial stability and, consequently, the performance of the U.S. economy. To mitigate concerns that this action would exacerbate moral hazard and encourage inappropriate risk-taking in the future, the Federal Reserve ensured that the terms of the credit extended to AIG imposed significant costs and constraints on the firm's owners, managers, and creditors. The chief executive officer has been replaced. The collateral for the loan is the company itself, together with its subsidiaries.1 (Insurance policyholders and holders of AIG investment products are, however, fully protected.) Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance of the loan at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points, implying a current interest rate over 11 percent. In addition, the U.S. government will receive equity participation rights corresponding to a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders, among other things.
In the case of Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury declined to commit public funds to support the institution. The failure of Lehman posed risks. But the troubles at Lehman had been well known for some time, and investors clearly recognized--as evidenced, for example, by the high cost of insuring Lehman's debt in the market for credit default swaps--that the failure of the firm was a significant possibility. Thus, we judged that investors and counterparties had had time to take precautionary measures.
While perhaps manageable in itself, Lehman's default was combined with the unexpectedly rapid collapse of AIG, which together contributed to the development last week of extraordinarily turbulent conditions in global financial markets. These conditions caused equity prices to fall sharply, the cost of short-term credit--where available--to spike upward, and liquidity to dry up in many markets. Losses at a large money market mutual fund sparked extensive withdrawals from a number of such funds. A marked increase in the demand for safe assets--a flight to quality--sent the yield on Treasury bills down to a few hundredths of a percent. By further reducing asset values and potentially restricting the flow of credit to households and businesses, these developments pose a direct threat to economic growth.
The Federal Reserve took a number of actions to increase liquidity and stabilize markets. Notably, to address dollar funding pressures worldwide, we announced a significant expansion of reciprocal currency arrangements with foreign central banks, including an approximate doubling of the existing swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank and the authorization of new swap facilities with the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Canada. We will continue to work closely with colleagues at other central banks to address ongoing liquidity pressures. The Federal Reserve also announced initiatives to assist money market mutual funds facing heavy redemptions and to increase liquidity in short-term credit markets.
Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by the Congress is urgently required to stabilize the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy. In this regard, the Federal Reserve supports the Treasury's proposal to buy illiquid assets from financial institutions. Purchasing impaired assets will create liquidity and promote price discovery in the markets for these assets, while reducing investor uncertainty about the current value and prospects of financial institutions. More generally, removing these assets from institutions’ balance sheets will help to restore confidence in our financial markets and enable banks and other institutions to raise capital and to expand credit to support economic growth.
At this juncture, in light of the fast-moving developments in financial markets, it is essential to deal with the crisis at hand. Certainly, the shortcomings and weaknesses of our financial markets and regulatory system must be addressed if we are to avoid a repetition of what has transpired in our financial markets over the past year. However, the development of a comprehensive proposal for reform would require careful and extensive analysis that would be difficult to compress into a short legislative timeframe now available. Looking forward, the Federal Reserve is committed to working closely with the Congress, the Administration, other federal regulators, and other stakeholders in developing a stronger, more resilient, and better regulated financial system.
Footnotes
1. Specifically, the loan is collateralized by all of the assets of the company and its primary non-regulated subsidiaries. These assets include the equity of substantially all of AIG's regulated subsidiaries.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
To Our Clients
Dear Clients,
In view of the tumultuous developments in the U.S. and foreign financial markets, we felt it appropriate to give you our overview of the current situation and an explanation of what we think will be the ultimate outcome.
While the Federal Reserve has taken significant steps to provide liquidity to the financial institutions (commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, etc.) which hold mortgage-backed assets of questionable value, there is a high degree of unwillingness for investors to make capital commitments to these institutions. This has resulted in a crisis of confidence which, in turn, has wreaked havoc on the prices of the equities of those financial institutions.
Before the financial markets begin to recover, the weaker participants--who had contributed to the excess lending capacity in the mortgage market--will be either absorbed or eliminated. This process will require sacrifice, ingenuity, patience and perseverance. Then, at some point in the not-too-distant future, expectations of a return to financial stability will take hold and markets should recover.
At the foundation of our belief in the ultimate resolution of the financial market problems are the facts that central banks are taking the correct steps and that the economies of the world will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate than had been experienced in recent years. The recent decline in energy and related commodity prices, as well as the stabilization of the Dollar, coupled with reduced inflationary expectations, afford the opportunity to correct the malaise.
Finally, we want to assure you that we continue to monitor the developments impacting the markets, as well as the securities in your portfolio(s) and will be certain to make any adjustments deemed necessary as conditions continue to evolve. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Gofen and Glossberg, LLC
In view of the tumultuous developments in the U.S. and foreign financial markets, we felt it appropriate to give you our overview of the current situation and an explanation of what we think will be the ultimate outcome.
While the Federal Reserve has taken significant steps to provide liquidity to the financial institutions (commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, etc.) which hold mortgage-backed assets of questionable value, there is a high degree of unwillingness for investors to make capital commitments to these institutions. This has resulted in a crisis of confidence which, in turn, has wreaked havoc on the prices of the equities of those financial institutions.
Before the financial markets begin to recover, the weaker participants--who had contributed to the excess lending capacity in the mortgage market--will be either absorbed or eliminated. This process will require sacrifice, ingenuity, patience and perseverance. Then, at some point in the not-too-distant future, expectations of a return to financial stability will take hold and markets should recover.
At the foundation of our belief in the ultimate resolution of the financial market problems are the facts that central banks are taking the correct steps and that the economies of the world will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate than had been experienced in recent years. The recent decline in energy and related commodity prices, as well as the stabilization of the Dollar, coupled with reduced inflationary expectations, afford the opportunity to correct the malaise.
Finally, we want to assure you that we continue to monitor the developments impacting the markets, as well as the securities in your portfolio(s) and will be certain to make any adjustments deemed necessary as conditions continue to evolve. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Gofen and Glossberg, LLC
Monday, September 1, 2008
How bad is the bank crises?
If you read the common buzz concerning the current financial crisis you would get the impression that this is the worst crisis ever to hit the economy. Yet, on Friday the FDIC announced only the 10th bank failure for 2008. With over 8,000 banking institutions in the U.S., 10 failures seem a long ways away from a crisis. Here is some of the data to see how “big” the banking crisis has become. Here are a few points of interest:
- The 10 banks taken over by the FDIC had just under $40 billion of assets in total.
- The total assets of the 10 largest banks in the U.S. is a combined $6 trillion.
- Total assets of all 8,451 FDIC insured institutions is $13.3 trillion.
- Percentage of failed assets, year to date, of total: 0.3%. Or written as a decimal: 0.003 of all banking assets were in failed banks so far this year.
In comparison, during the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s and early 1990s there were over 1,000 federally insured S&L’s dissolved. The Resolution Trust Corp. took down 747 institutions over 6 years, or a rate of 125 per year. The current situation is showing no signs of getting anywhere near those levels.
The current situation has most banks taking severe write downs on any asset that has any chance of being impaired. If these assets under-perform less than anticipated, many banks could be recouping the write downs as outsized profits in the next few years.
Many believe we are just at the beginning of a major financial crisis in the U.S. This is a financial system where home prices peaked almost 3 years ago and the mortgage meltdown started in earnest over a year ago and we still have only 10 bank failures and less than 1/3 of 1% of banking assets taken over by the feds. Bank failures are not accelerating this late in the game as the economy starts to recover and the housing market is showing signs of a pending bottom.
Is this a glass half full or half empty? Do we include Fannie and Fredie in this collection of "banks?" And what about Bear Stearns? Is there fear out there...rescuing Fannie and Freddie will put the bail-out numbers into the trillions. Just a thought.
- The 10 banks taken over by the FDIC had just under $40 billion of assets in total.
- The total assets of the 10 largest banks in the U.S. is a combined $6 trillion.
- Total assets of all 8,451 FDIC insured institutions is $13.3 trillion.
- Percentage of failed assets, year to date, of total: 0.3%. Or written as a decimal: 0.003 of all banking assets were in failed banks so far this year.
In comparison, during the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s and early 1990s there were over 1,000 federally insured S&L’s dissolved. The Resolution Trust Corp. took down 747 institutions over 6 years, or a rate of 125 per year. The current situation is showing no signs of getting anywhere near those levels.
The current situation has most banks taking severe write downs on any asset that has any chance of being impaired. If these assets under-perform less than anticipated, many banks could be recouping the write downs as outsized profits in the next few years.
Many believe we are just at the beginning of a major financial crisis in the U.S. This is a financial system where home prices peaked almost 3 years ago and the mortgage meltdown started in earnest over a year ago and we still have only 10 bank failures and less than 1/3 of 1% of banking assets taken over by the feds. Bank failures are not accelerating this late in the game as the economy starts to recover and the housing market is showing signs of a pending bottom.
Is this a glass half full or half empty? Do we include Fannie and Fredie in this collection of "banks?" And what about Bear Stearns? Is there fear out there...rescuing Fannie and Freddie will put the bail-out numbers into the trillions. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)