Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Morgan Stanley: What Did CIC Know, and When Did They Know It?
Tinbox, in the comments to my last Morgan Stanley post, makes a very good point: that China Investment Corp must have been given lots of material non-public information in advance of Morgan Stanley's Q4 earnings announcement.
I don't know how long it takes the Chinese to do due diligence on a bank the size of Morgan Stanley, but if it's more than four trading days, we have a prima facie problem here. That's because under SEC regulations, such information must be released on a "rapid and current basis," which the courts take to mean four days.
Of course it is conceivable that this deal got done in the space of four days. Keith Bradsher says that it's "an abrupt shift in strategy for the $200 billion fund," whose chairman said as recently as November 29 that he "would mainly invest in financial instruments like index products". Bradsher also describes the decision to invest as "sudden". But given the complexities of Morgan Stanley's balance sheet - Paul Murphy notes today that its "unallocated economic capital was a negative $4.1 billion" at the end of the latest quarter - it would surely take either enormous guts or an incredible amount of financial sophistication to make a $5 billion investment decision essentially over the course of a long weekend, especially when that decision involved buying in very close to a market price which did not reflect the write-down news.
But given the timing of Zoe Cruz's defenestration at the end of November, one has to suspect that Morgan Stanley has been sitting on the news of these losses for much more than four days - and that CIC has, as well.
Incidentally, since I've ventured far into the land of rampant speculation already, here's another thought: could the Morgan Stanley bid this morning be coming from the same people who have been buying in to the Chinese stock-market bubble? Given that the Chinese government now owns 10% of Morgan Stanley, some investors might assume that the bank has an inside track in that country - something which could prove to be very valuable indeed, over the long term.
Update: Just to be clear, here, I'm not accusing CIC of doing anything wrong at all. I'm worried about what Morgan Stanley did. If Morgan Stanley had material non-public information about its losses and didn't divulge it to shareholders in a timely manner, that would violate SEC regulations.






