Why Has Bear Stearn's Stock Been Rallying?

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | 07:00 AM

Bear Stearns (BSC)
1 minute chart, March 17-18, 2008

Bear_2_day

Note the red horizontal line above is at the $2 mark. 
>
>
Since the announcement of the $2 dissolution of Bear Stearns, the stock has undergone a puzzling rally.  After gapping down 94% or so Monday morning, the stock of BSC traded up to $7+.

Floyd Norris posed the "
Great market puzzle" of the day:  Why was Bear Stearns stock trading so much above what Morgan plans to pay?

Today's WSJ notes that Bear's stock has soared 23%. Their answer: "bets that J.P. Morgan will have to pay more for the firm, setting the stage for a high-stakes game of brinksmanship with investors in one corner and the Fed and J.P. Morgan in the other."

I think that's wrong.

There is a simpler explanation, one that might surprise you: BOND HOLDERS are buying up Bears loose stock. As much as they can get. 

Why?

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DEAL GETS DONE!
 
Consider: there is ~$75 billion in outstanding bonds (see Bloomberg screen below), and another $75 billion in other miscellaneous paper. (UPDATE: The NYT pegs it at $300B).  Prior to the BSC/JPM deal's announcement, the BSC Bonds were trading for 80 cents on the dollar.

Imagine your fund owned a one billion dollars worth of Bear bonds (mark to market = $800 million).  Isn't it worth buying 10  million shares or so at $3 - 4 or so dollars a share? You will get $2 per share in JPM stock, so buying it a few bucks over the takeover price isn't all that risky. Remember, insiders own 30%, and Joe Lewis also owns about 10%.

So as mad as the accumulation appears, its actually quite rational -- IF YOU ARE A MAJOR BOND HOLDER, and are doing this to capture voting stock. (All the other idiots buying BSC are pretty much fucked).

>


Bear Stearn Bond Issuances

Bear_bond_debt

>
Also on the case: Felix Salmon, David Neubert   

As I have been saying, this was an orderly liquidation -- not a bail out. The Fed would have been embarrassed to have Bear Stearns go belly up on their watch -- even though the official coroner's pronouncement was a deadly cocktail of a love of mortgage backed securities mixed with weak risk management. The thinly traded mortgage-based paper got marked lower and lower because NO ONE ELSE WANTED THEM. That is what caused the run on the bank, and not any whisper campaign.

Quite bluntly, its tough to see who else can come in at any sort of premium. The structure of the JPM deal is unique -- they have the Fed's $30B backstop (no one else has that guarantee); They also are guaranteed Bear's HQ -- its essentially a break up fee if the deal does not go through (making Bear worth $1.1B less to anyone else).

>

UPDATE: March 19, 2008 9:48am

I just noticed the NYT has a piece on this same issue: It’s Bondholders vs. Shareholders in a Race to Buy Bear Stearns Stock -- They also state the total outstanding Bear bonds are $300B ...


>

Sources:

Quick Opening Reactions
Floyd Norris
NYT, March 17, 2008,  10:14 am   
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/quick-opening-reactions/

Bear's Run-Up Sets the Stage For Epic Clash
Speculators Ignite Rally, Driving Shares Up 23%;
Disbelief on Deal Price
MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG and DAVID ENRICH
WSJ, March 19, 2008; Page C1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120588302940646809.html

It’s Bondholders vs. Shareholders in a Race to Buy Bear Stearns Stock
LANDON THOMAS Jr.
NYT, March 19, 2008; Page C1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/19bear.html

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack (1)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post

bn-image

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e55133294e8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Has Bear Stearn's Stock Been Rallying?:

» Bear Stearns Bailout: It's Not Who You Think from Businomics Blog
The quick read from the press is that the purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase was a bailout. Jim Hamilton over at EconBrowser doesn't buy that story. He says, $2 a share is no bailout, but instead represents a [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 19, 2008 11:55:39 PM

Comments

Why don't the bondholders just buy Credit default protection on the bonds they hold. The price for such protection must have traded down now that JPM is standing behind Bear.

Posted by: Eric | Mar 19, 2008 7:55:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.



Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Archives

Complete Archives List

Blogroll

Blogroll

Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:


Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites

FeedBurner


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™

FeedBurner