Running Down Wall Street

Bear Stearns. Lehman Brothers. Merrill Lynch. Three of Wall Street's venerable names failed to persuade the markets that they would survive as independent banks. Yesterday the last two of the independent titans of Wall Street came under fire.

Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are were battered yesterday by the stock market. At its lowest point, Goldman was down 25 percent, with its stock trading below $100. Morgan Stanley was hit even harder, plunging 40 percent in intraday trading. By the end of the day, the question was which commercial bank would combine with Morgan Stanley, and whether Goldman might go private or also merge with a commercial bank.

Behind the scenes things were even worse. Hedge fund clients were in full flight from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, according to a person familiar with the matter. The larger commercial banks found themselves inundated with new clients for their prime brokerages. As many as twenty hedge funds approached one large commercial bank with a prime brokerage. It looked like a run on the banks might get started.

The process of watching an investment bank rapidly implode can be perplexing. Why should even a dramatic decline in its stock price force an investment bank out of business? Even if investors lost confidence in the investment bank, wouldn't it still have a strong team in place that could continue serving its customers? As with Bear Stearns, Lehman and Merrill Lynch, however, the customers of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs apparently began to pull their business while the share price faltered, according to our source. It looked as if the stage was being set for another run on the bank.

Scholars looking at the old-fashioned bank runs of the 1930s, when customers raced to withdraw their deposits from faltering banks, have come up with an explanation for bank runs that sheds light on what happened to Lehman Brothers last week. As it turns out, shareholders unknowingly provide an important service for a bank's customers, providing outside oversight of a bank's activities. In particular, scrutiny by sophisticated institutional shareholders can act as a check against abusive or overly risky activity. A sell-off by these shareholders signals two things: risk at the bank has increased and the shareholder oversight mechanism is no longer in place.

The customers of investment banks, like depositors at commercial banks, depend on shareholder scrutiny, and withdraw their business from the banks when a dropping stock price signals this has broken down. Yesterday, enough shares traded hands to replace nearly every third owner of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. It hadn't reached the Lehman stage yet, where the volume over a few days amounted to every share of the companies stock. Still, customers watching could conclude that the shareholders who had been watching the shop had fled for the exits.

Until last week, many believed that Lehman couldn't fall prey to a Bear Stearns style bank run because it had something Bear never had: access to the primary dealer lending facility, a special program that allows investment banks to borrow from the Federal Reserve's emergency discount window. Opened after the collapse of Bear, the discount window should have guaranteed Lehman wouldn't ever lack the funds it needed to run its business. But according to people familiar with the matter, Lehman's customers last week started moving their funds from margin accounts, which Lehman could tap for liquidity, to segmented custodial accounts, where the money is out of Lehman's reach. As the process played out, Lehman would quickly find itself grasping for funds. If customers and investors don't regain confidence in Morgan and Goldman, the same process could well get underway.

Just as banks' depositors occasionally make runs on banks despite the existence of deposit insurance, investment banking customers of Lehman began a bank run despite the emergency backstop. They may be preparing to do the same to Goldman and Morgan. In the end, the Fed's backstop is no substitute for trust and scrutiny by the markets.

Comments

1

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 7:55AM

Word, Carney, word.

2

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 7:59AM

I've made this comment before. The PB run on the banks was caused by Paulson trying to remove moral hazard from the market.

By letting Lehman fail with the justification that their counterparties had plenty of time to see the problem and reduce exposure, he has given everyone incentive to pull their business and assets as soon as there is a hint of trouble at one of these firms.

How could anyone justify leaving assets at a Morgan Stanley PB today? It is easy to move the assets to a big commercial bank where they will be better protected and you won't end up in the same mess as the Lehman PB clients.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Paulson's elimination of moral hazard killed off GS's pb business? Talk about the law of unintended consequences...

3

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:00AM

Breaking News: China said it will cancel the tax on stock purchases and encourage state companies to buy shares of listed units.

These Chinese commies disgust me, they'll never udnerstand how cpaitalism works. You can't just have the government start buying stocks because the market doesn't go up when...you....want...... never mind

4

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:04AM

some say the "run" was simply coordinated short selling by hedge funds - surely such activities must be disclosed to the market? do we NOT have a transparent system?

5

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:04AM

9:30am ET: Worlds largest short covering rally begins in 3, 2, 1......

6

Posted by diablo, Sep 18, 2008 8:09AM

A 1 or 2 percent rally today is nothing.

7

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:15AM

is that "Pretty Woman" Steven Rattner guest hosting on CNBC now or is that the Rockefaker guy?

8

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:20AM

You've left out the irrational as a driver of customer sentiment -- just as shareholders respond en masse to signal trends they can't possibly validate, so too the customer base of an investment bank will assess risk superficially with incomplete and hyperbolic facts in hand. Fear is irrational, this panic is not resting on diligent shareholder scrutiny. This is a collective insanity and until it passes, will remind us daily of how wretchedly fragile and uncontrollable is this entire industry.

9

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:21AM

@5 why you cover your shorts when you could buy ATM Calls. 1)If the shares do rally you can just exercise to cover. 2) if they don't rally you can excercise and lend them you buddy so he can short and he can lend to you so you can short

uh oh, Mr. Cox there's a whole in the bucket, better start bail'in faster

10

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:22AM

I saw the CNBC "Money Honey Up and Commer" in front of Morgan today.

I realize now why they only show the top half of her frame.

Where a warm and fuzzy soverign wealth fund when you need one....

Full stop.

11

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:23AM

GS & MS... nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey ... goodbye!

12

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:24AM

Breaking News: Bloomberg is running for Mayor of Charlotte.

Full Stop.

13

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:56AM

Clients pulling away from Goldman? Incredible. They have the best tech (very important for prime brokerage) and the best expertise on the Street. This is truly irrational. Stock price is one thing -- where are the CDSs on Morgan and Goldman?

14

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 8:57AM

Are bank runs such as this simply an example of informational cascades? In that case, isn't the rumor that MS and Goldman are going to be subject to bank runs just a self-fulfilling prophecy?

15

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 9:06AM

blame the shorts........and how about the put buyers and call sellers while you are at it.

Prop up the guys playing with 10:1, 15:1 and 25:1 leverage....F'ing brilliant....

This is a textbook case of throwing good money after bad, the only difference is that the good money is the US tax base

16

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 9:17AM

Great article, Carney, do you mean Morgan and Goldman (instead Lehman) in the before last paragraph?

17

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 9:18AM

too long JC, do not start my day like this son

18

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 9:18AM

Is this the way the world ends?

http://moneyistheway.blogspot.com/2008/09/hollow-man.html

19

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 9:27AM

guy, you apparently haven't caught on that the ability to short an infinite number of a company's shares (that's naked shorting), forcing it into adverse "credit events," is a perversity in the market.

it's like boxing with an opponent who carries a chainsaw.

occasionally legal provisions distort markets. this is one of those occasions.

you're not dealing a "market" so much as a wealth destroyer.

20

Posted by Anal_yst, Sep 18, 2008 9:29AM

I call pure bullsh!t on this, Carney. You give shareholders FAR too much credit.

This is a panic selling issue, and institutional investors have to, at a certain point sell sell sell lest they get grilled for standing by and doing nothing.

21

Posted by bank_teller, Sep 18, 2008 9:36AM

Q: what the f is a cds? (I know the def on wikipedia and google, before you tards start that again.) nobody knows what this cds cascade is gonna do when counterparties go belly up, and the press isn't giving much attention to the fact that having fewer counterparties every day is ratcheting up the systemic risk levels exponentially. the entire cds market needs to shrink in a hurry.

22

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 10:43AM

got to ask who acts as prime brokers to the hedge funds....time to pull those relationships.

23

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 11:45AM

Any comment this morning on an article in the NY Sun about the exemption given by the SEC to 5 firms in 2004 that allowed them to leverage up on thier debt to net capital ratios which for broker dealers (now i know tht leh, bsc, ms, and gs are not broker dealers)is 12 to 1.
The exemption given to the 5 firms allowed them to lever up to 40 to 1.

So is the SEC blaming short sellers when in fact they are to blame for exempting these 5 firms of which there are TWO left (as i write this)?

24

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 11:46AM

23 My comment: do people actually read the NY Sun? The arts section is actually very insightful, but the rest a piece of s**t. Which is why its due to fold soon.

25

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 1:25PM

Well, it doesn't make sense to me. I have experience (don't ask how) with 4 primes, 3 others associated with commercial banks and MS. MS is far and away the best in every respect.

BTW, the cap reserve requirement for a US based BD is the reason you keep your cash and securities there. A protection you don't have abroad.

Finally, as others have noted, the point that insider sales reflect a prudent risk management decision assumes 1) that these are long sales and 2) that the sales are taking place in a rational market environment, instead of one which has been primed to panic.

26

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 3:01PM

15 - your comments are right on. Whenever I hear people with political clout say nebulous, sound-bitey things like "regulate / punish / investigate the speculators", it scares the living shit out of me. Ask one of them to define a "speculator" - I think you have just named several potential targets. Or any option of any kind. Or any futures or commodities contract. Or any hedge. Come to think of it, going long a stock would even qualify.

Yikes. When (and it is "when", not "if") we get a knee-jerk, SarBox-type legislative reaction to this crisis, the results of the Law Of Unintended Consequences will truly be astounding.

27

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 3:18PM

15 - your comments are right on. Whenever I hear people with political clout say nebulous, sound-bitey things like "regulate / punish / investigate the speculators", it scares the living shit out of me. Ask one of them to define a "speculator" - I think you have just named several potential targets. Or any option of any kind. Or any futures or commodities contract. Or any hedge. Come to think of it, going long a stock would even qualify.

Yikes. When (and it is "when", not "if") we get a knee-jerk, SarBox-type legislative reaction to this crisis, the results of the Law Of Unintended Consequences will truly be astounding.

28

Posted by guest, Sep 18, 2008 3:25PM

15 - your comments are right on. Whenever I hear people with political clout say nebulous, sound-bitey things like "regulate / punish / investigate the speculators", it scares the living shit out of me. Ask one of them to define a "speculator" - I think you have just named several potential targets. Or any option of any kind. Or any futures or commodities contract. Or any hedge. Come to think of it, going long a stock would even qualify.

Yikes. When (and it is "when", not "if") we get a knee-jerk, SarBox-type legislative reaction to this crisis, the results of the Law Of Unintended Consequences will truly be astounding.

Post Your Comment