Is Bear Really Worth Only $2 Per Share?
Around the world today, people are looking at each other with a semi-glazed expression on their face, and saying something along the lines of "Dude. $2 a share." As Dennis Berman says, this is what they call on the Street "going donuts."
If you think that $2 represents a valuation for Bear Stearns, then things are very bad indeed. But in reality it doesn't: it represents a nominal price paid to Bear's shareholders in the absence of any alternative.
John Carney was uncharacteristically pessimistic this morning:
Bear Stearns was sold JP Morgan Chase for less than the value of its real estate assets. This negative valuation, in turn, suggests JP Morgan is accepting huge liabilities from Bear.
Which prompted the following IM exchange:
Felix Salmon: I think you're wrong to read much more into the negative valuation of Bear except for the fact that JPM was in a position to demand whatever it wanted, including a $2 purchase price
Felix Salmon: it's not like there was an underbidder, beggars can't be choosers
John Carney: That might be true.
John Carney: I mean, yeah. Probably anything over zero was better than nothing.
Felix Salmon: bankruptcy would have been a nightmare
John Carney: yeah. even if shareholders could have gotten more out of liquidation through bankruptcy, that would have taken a long, long time.
Felix Salmon: it's SO not about the shareholders
Felix Salmon: this is what happens when you're at the bottom of the capital structure, you get shafted in a crisis
John Carney: It's only about the shareholders to the extent that the board still has fiduciary duties to them.
Felix Salmon: That and a coupla bills will buy you a share of stock in BSC
Of course the shareholders themselves can still revolt. As Andrew Clavell says,
If you are Joe Lewis, surely you would want bankruptcy, and the optionality that thereby remains in your stock position in Bear Stearns (BSC) rather than giving up at $2...who cares about the $2?
But I have a feeling that Bear's shareholders simply don't have much power in this situation. Yes, there will be lawsuits: that's a 100% probability. But they will come later, after the acquisition has closed. Jamie Dimon seems to have played his hand very well, maybe because he was there talking to Bernanke and Geithner even as Jimmy Cayne was still playing bridge.
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
- Ignoring the Stock Market
- Dec 1 2008 1:06PM EST
- When Mutual Funds Reopen for Business
- Dec 1 2008 11:50AM EST
- Credit Card Crunch
- Dec 1 2008 11:32AM EST
- Art: The Case of Ana Tzarev
- Dec 1 2008 10:13AM EST
- Tanta, RIP
- Dec 1 2008 1:24AM EST
- Extra Credit, Sunday Edition
- Nov 30 2008 11:29PM EST
- Geithner isn't Rubin
- Nov 30 2008 12:46PM EST
- Ben Stein Watch: November 30, 2008
- Nov 29 2008 11:22PM EST
- Rubin's Teflon Finally Wears Off
- Nov 29 2008 3:11PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










