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.
Loading...
Thank you for registering as a Portfolio.com Insider. Your comment has been added.
Create Your Public Profile- The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
- Apr 27 2009 9:26AM EDT
- Sinking Animal Spirits
- Apr 27 2009 8:45AM EDT
- Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
- Apr 26 2009 10:00AM EDT
- Be Your Own Counterfeiter
- Apr 26 2009 9:36AM EDT
- Being Tim Geithner
- Apr 25 2009 12:37PM EDT
- Notes From a Press Conference Naif
- Apr 25 2009 9:41AM EDT
- What Good is the News?
- Apr 25 2009 8:32AM EDT
- Stressful Enough
- Apr 24 2009 2:29PM EDT
- Not Regretting the Pound
- Apr 24 2009 1:09PM EDT
- Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
- Apr 24 2009 9:47AM EDT
- Non-Economic Questions of the Day
- Apr 24 2009 9:12AM EDT
- The Stress Test Blind Alley
- Apr 24 2009 8:36AM EDT
- Happy Hour
- Apr 23 2009 9:40PM EDT
- Recovery Without Rebalancing
- Apr 23 2009 6:13PM EDT
- The Shape of Your Recession
- Apr 23 2009 5:11PM EDT
Categories
Links
- Email Ryan Avent
- Econospeak

- Financial Crookery

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- 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

- Ultimi Barbarorum







