Lehman Brothers' Loss Is Nobody's Gain

Satyajit Das  Oct 20, 2008 9:50 am

Lehman Brothers' Loss Is Nobody's Gain
 
Global plumbing now springing new leaks.
 

 
The process is complicated by a variety of factors. In any bankruptcy, the sheer number of contracts that must be dealt with can be large. Lehman Brothers, it is understood, had about 2 million contracts open. There are likely to be cases of incomplete documentation and errors that will need to be resolved. Operational risks and problems of logistics abound.

The bankruptcy proceedings inevitably accelerate the need to deal with difficult to value and illiquid assets. Action taken by the trustees and administrators in the best interest of creditors can adversely affect the overall market.

Bankruptcy law is jurisdiction specific and different sets of trustees and administrators will grapple with how to best manage the assets of a specific legal entity for the advantage of its creditors. In the case of Lehman Brothers, there are already disputes about transfers (totaling $8 billion) made between the English entity and the US companies. There may also be differences in approach in dealing with the assets. The US trustee in bankruptcy indicated that "time was of essence" in dealing with the assets. In contrast, the UK administrator anticipated a long, drawn-out affair. All this creates uncertainty about the impact on creditors and the market.

Assets held in a fiduciary capacity can become entangled in the process. Where Lehman Brothers acted as prime broker, hedge funds and other asset managers now face a cumbersome process and potentially lengthy delays in recovering investments held by Lehman. This affected around $45 billion in assets and $20 billion in short positions. The legal owners now are unable to deal with their assets but may face margin calls if the value of the positions deteriorates.

The true owners of these assets also become exposed to risk of losses where their assets (pledged to cover loans) have been re-lent by Lehman to finance itself (a process known as "re-hypothecation"). This spreads the problem to hedge funds and asset mangers with no ostensible exposure to the bankruptcy.

These complex networks and links tie to together all participants in modern financial markets. The chains of risk spread problems from distressed financial institutions to weak institutions ultimately affecting even strong entities, seemingly remote from the problem. Assume Bank A, a sound financial institution, has large hedges with Bank B, another sound financial institution. Where a counterparty to Bank B encounters difficulties, the resulting losses may imperil Bank B that in turn will affect Bank A.

The risk spreads through direct losses, calls on liquidity, the ability to fund or the uncertainty created that ultimately brings the ability to deal with confidence and security in financial instruments to a halt. Contagion resembles nothing so much as a hungry wolf pack that systematically hunts down weakened prey animals within a herd one by one.

Understanding of the detailed connections, whilst unglamorous, is increasingly the key to anticipating the evolution of the crisis and preventing exposure to events. It is also where long-term reform efforts of the financial system should be directed.

John W. Gardner once observed:

"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

Shoddy monetary philosophies caused the financial crisis. Now inadequate plumbing of the global financial system is exacerbating its risks.
1 of 1 (100%) found this helpful
Rate this article:  (1 Vote)
Comments (8) See All Comments »
10-20-2008, 11:12 am
In retrospect, it may seem sensible to limit the growth of companies, so that nobody is too big to fail. In prospect - going forward - how could you possibly limit corporate growth, or size ? By what number, or measure ? It's nonsensical. Plu
Read More
10-20-2008, 11:53 am
I for one am glad that lehman is in bankruptcy.

why??? because now we can see under the hood.

besides NO ONE WANTED LEHMAN WITH IT'S SYSTEMIC RISK, not even helicoptor ben!!

this exposed a bigger problem l
Read More
10-20-2008, 2:10 pm
You could limit total sales and / or assets. And require sufficient transparency of books that a decent MBA could figure out total sales and assets in a few days.

Care would have to be taken against arrangements that allow an entity to e
Read More
10-20-2008, 8:33 pm
Reading the article (and appreciating it :)) something occurred to me: What happens with all the SIV's/off-balance sheet entities/etc of these financial monsters as they go down? My understanding is thin in this area, but I believe they were p
Read More
10-22-2008, 6:16 am
Actually, limiting the size of the entity is not the problem. Limiting the stupidity of the entity IS the problem. What kind of evil slobs were running Lehman last year when they had offers to buy the corporation? At the risk of repeating myself,
Read More
discuss this article and more on the mv exchange
No positions in stocks mentioned.

Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options.  Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.



The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Ticker Talk
Popular Tickers:
SPX »AMZN »F »
Select
  •  
Talk Now
Share this Talk on your site:
Send us your feedback

Our Professors

rss article alert