1 / 20

Class 3 LTCM vs. Lehman Brothers

Class 3 LTCM vs. Lehman Brothers. LTCM: When genius failed. Hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management was founded in Feb 1994 by several partners, including John Meriwether from Salomon Brothers Myron Scholes and Bob Merton (Nobel prize, 1997)

arav
Download Presentation

Class 3 LTCM vs. Lehman Brothers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Class 3LTCM vs. Lehman Brothers

  2. LTCM: When genius failed • Hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management was founded in Feb 1994 by several partners, including • John Meriwether from Salomon Brothers • Myron Scholes and Bob Merton (Nobel prize, 1997) • Charging lofty fees: 2% of assets p.a. + 25% of profits • Starting with $1 bln, it provided net returns over 40% p.a. in 1995 and 1996, • …but lost $4.6 bln in 1998, • …was rescued by the consortium of banks with the aid of Fed • …and folded in early 2000. “LTCM collapsedemonstrates that modern financial risk management techniques do not work”

  3. Was the strategy of LTCM closer to (quasi-)arbitrage or speculation? • Fixed income arbitrage (relative value / convergence trades) • Long off-the-run Treasury bonds, short on-the-run (recently issued and more liquid) Treasuries • The tiny difference of a few basis points is magnified by high leverage • Derivatives arbitrage • Swaps, futures, options, etc. • Merger arbitrage • Buying potential takeover targets • Investing in the sovereign debt • Italy, Russia, etc. • Selling options on S&P500 • Earning low stable income unless the index falls a lot

  4. What were main risks for LTCM? • Market, liquidity and credit risk • What if spreads go up, volatility rises, bond defaults happen,…? • OTC derivatives positions are illiquid • …magnified by high leverage • Turning tiny profits (losses) to attractive returns (huge losses) • Large positions relative to the market • Followed by multiple imitators • Highly sensitive to market-wide liquidity Pickinguppenniesinfrontofa steamroller N. Taleb

  5. How to manage risks for such a big portfolio? • LTCM’s position in January 1, 1998 • Balance sheet assets: $125B • Notional of the derivatives (off balance): over $1.25T • 7,600 positions • 55 counterparties • Own capital: $4.8B • 30 times leverage for balance sheet assets only! • Emergency funding • $230 mln unsecured 3y term loan • $700 mln unsecured line of credit, annual renewal • Equity lock up period for investors: 3 years • In 1997 LTCM earned ‘only’ 17% and returned at the end of the year $2.7 bln to investors (the new ones)

  6. How could LTCM measure market risk? • Historical volatility • Could underestimate risk in a favorable market environment • Cannot fully account for the complicated derivatives positions • Exposure to relevant (secondary) factors • Volatility / liquidity / … • VaR adjusted for liquidity and correlation risk • Would give a rough estimate of the potential losses • Stress testing • Factor push: liquidity, correlations,… • Scenarios taking into account LTCM’s huge market position

  7. LTCM early crisis management • May-Jun 1998: -16% return • SalomonBrothersbondarbitragedeskcloses its portfolio • LTCM liquidates least attractive (most liquid) positions to meet margin calls • Aug 17, 1998: Russian default caused flight to safety and rise in risk premiums • LTCM lost $550 mln in August 21 • YTD losses 40% ($1.8B), capital down to $3.0B • Sep 2, 1998: letter to investors • YTD losses 52% ($2.5B), capital down to $2.3B • 82% of losses in relative value trades

  8. LTCM vs. the market, sep 1998 • Negative rumors • Fund raising fails • Bear Sterns (prime broker) demands more collateral • Some market participants liquidate similar positions • Some bet against LTCM: marking to worst “When it became apparent they were having difficulties, we thought that if they are going to default, we’re going to be short a hell of a lot of volatility. So we’d rather be short at 40 than 30 right? So it was clearly in our interest to mark to as high a volatility as possible. That’s why everybody pushed the volatility against them, which contributed to their demise in the end.” RISK, Oct 99

  9. Should have regulators interfered in such a situation? • Sep 23: consortium of 16 banks (organized by Fed) offered $3.6B for 90% stake in the LTCM • In July 1999 the fund was closed with small profit (10%) • 88% of the original investors made a profit (around 18%) • Avoiding the financial crisis? • LTCM’s default could cause price collapse • …and trigger chain reaction (cross-defaults of counterparties) • Too many important people to bear the losses? • There was an alternative offer in Sep 22: $4B by W.Buffet(together withAIG & Goldman Sachs) for 95% stake in LTCM • What were the long-term consequences of Fed’s assistance?

  10. Alan Greenspan’s testimony before Congress

  11. Lessons of LTCM: was it bad luck or risk management failure? • Risk management at LTCM • Limitations of VaR and model risk • Risk management at LTCM broker (Bear Stearns) • Partner relations vs. low haircut (high leverage) • Risk management at LTCM counterparties • Interaction with a highly leveraged offshore institution • Risk management at other financial institutions • Citi, JP Morgan, Chase also suffered big losses in Aug-Sep 1998 • Regulation / supervision • Moral hazard: will the Fed save all big losers whose default can endanger the whole financial system? • Were LTCM managers and investors ready for such losses?

  12. Lehman Brothers: from a major investment bank to the largest corporate bankruptcy • One of the oldest and most profitable investment banks • Founded in 1850 • Bought by AmEx in 1984, spun off in 1994 through an IPO • Traditional strength: • Fixed income underwriting and trading (39% of income, 59% of assets) • Change of strategy: moving from low-risk brokerage model to high-risk global banking model • Diversified to equity and advisory businesses • …and mortgages (29% of assets) • Market presence • One of the largest dealers in the commercial paper market • Top-10 counterparty in the CDS market ($800B notional)

  13. Position of Lehman at the end of 2007:4th largest US securities firm • 2007 results: record profits $4.2B and revenues $19.3B • Total assets: $691B • $79B of mortgage-related securities incl. $5.3B subprime • Market cap: $35B (down from $60B in Feb 2007) • Equity: $22.5B • Over 1,000 subsidiaries and 28,000 employees • Leverage ratio = Assets/Equity = 30.7 • Funding went mostly via short-term repos ($215B with avg maturity 24d), no retail deposits • Liquidity management: the goal was to provide 12 months of funding under stress • $35B in cash and cash equivalents • $50B of high-quality assets that could be sold or used as collateral

  14. Events: beginning of the end • July 2007: bankruptcy of two hedge funds managed by Bear Stearns • Highly leveraged investment into mortgages • By end-2007 the total losses of banks on MBS exceeded $100B • March 16, 2008: collapse of Bear Stearns • Acquired by JP Morgan at $2 per share (under Fed’s request) • Rumors about insolvency of Lehman using a similar business model (just like in 1998 during LTCM events) • March 18, 2008: earnings announcement by Lehman led to 46% share rise • $489M profit beating expectations ($4.7B losses offset by hedging) • The leverage increased to 31.6 despite $1.9B preferred shares issue • April 1, 2008: another $4B issue of preferred convertibles • Shares went up by 18%

  15. Events: heading towards failure • April 8, 2008: David Einhorn (Greenlight Capital hedge fund) announced shorting Lehman • Lehman’s write-downs on mortgages should be larger • High leverage makes them vulnerable (they need 3-5 times more capital) • June 2, 2008: S&P downgraded Lehman’s rating from A+ to A (together with Merril Lynch and Morgan Stanley) • June 9, 2008: Lehman announced first ever quarterly loss as a public company, $2.8B • Total losses $17B partly offset by $7.5B hedging gains and asset sales • Leverage went down to 25 • Announcing sales of $6B stocks at 15% discount to market price • June 12, 2008: CFO and President were fired

  16. Events: the end • August 2008: Lehman laid off 1,500 employees (6% workforce) • Sep 7, 2008: the gvt seized control over Freddy Mac & Fannie Mae • Sep 10, 2008: Lehman announced a second quarterly loss $3.9B • …along with intention to sell of most of its investment mgt business • This led to credit rating downgrade and stock price plunge • Sep 13, 2008: the Fed organized a meeting of bankers to discuss the future of Lehman • The gvt refused to bail out them, encouraged private buyout • Before that, Lehman tried to engage the Korea Development Bank, the Bank of America and Barclays, but with no success • Sep 15, 2008: Lehman filed for bankruptcy • The international offices were ordered to transfer money to NY, but chose to file for bankruptcy or liquidation • Later Lehman’s assets were sold to Barclays, Nomura, …

  17. Consequences: the ‘perfect storm’ in the financial markets • The largest bankruptcy in the US history • Affecting company’s employees, counterparties, investors,… • Leading to chain reaction • Sep 15: BoA acquired Merrill Lynch for $50B • Sep 16: Fed announced $85B rescue package for AIG • Sep 22: Goldman Sachs & Morgan Stanley convert into bank holding companies • Dollar fell • Flight from corporate securities to Treasuries • CDS spreads widened • Money market funds faced heavy redemptions • Global equity markets lost trillions of dollars

  18. LTCM vs. LB: what is the difference? • What was the main reason of the failure? • LB is a corporate governance case! • Using Repo 105 program, LB could hide its true leverage • LB accounted for repos as asset disposals (hiding the obligation to buy back the collateral) • $50B in sep08, reducing leverage from 13.9 to 12.1 • Why didn’t the Fed save LB like it saved LTCM?

More Related