|
After Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, it's now Bear Stearns' turn to writedown
more assets
Driven by the implosion of the US asset securitization market, the US housing
industry saw writedowns and credit losses of $133 billiion, and still counting.
Merill Lynch, leading the pack, has thus far written down assets worth $24.5
billion, followed by Citigroup, which has written down $22.1 billion worth
of assets. J.P. Morgan Chase also written down $1.3 billion attributable to
subprime losses. The meltdown in the US asset securitization market has its
repercussion on the entire global financial systems with banks in Europe and
across Asia reporting huge writedown of assets. European Banks such as UBS
are anticipated to report huge writedowns in their fourth quarter results,
totalling $14.4 billion, while HSBC has reported writedown and credit loss
worth $10.7 billion. However, Bear Stearns which has so far written down $700
million and $1.9 billion in 3Q 07 and 4Q 07, respectively seems to have inadequately
written down its assets taking into consideration the level of exposure it
has toward the risky assets. Bear Stearns was the Street's, and the world's,
fixed income mortgage derivative leader yet it actually came in close to last
place in writing down the value of its mortgage derivative assets. Something
just doesn't smell right... We are likely to see the company writing down more
far more assets in the coming quarters.
Total writedown and credit losses

Source: Bloomberg
| Banks and Brokers write-downs |
Write down |
Credit Loss |
Total |
| Merrill Lynch |
24.5 |
|
24.5 |
| Citigroup |
19.6 |
2.5 |
22.1 |
| UBS* |
14.4 |
|
14.4 |
| HSBC |
0.9 |
9.8 |
10.7 |
| Morgan Stanley |
9.4 |
|
9.4 |
| Bank of America |
7 |
0.9 |
7.9 |
| Washington Mutual* |
0.3 |
6.2 |
6.5 |
| Credit Agricole* |
4.9 |
|
4.9 |
| Wachovia Bank |
2.7 |
2 |
4.7 |
| JP Morgan Chase |
1.6 |
1.6 |
3.2 |
| Canadian Imperial (CIBC)* |
3.2 |
|
3.2 |
| Barclays* |
2.7 |
|
2.7 |
| Bear Stearns |
2.6 |
|
2.6 |
| Royal Bank of Scotland* |
2.5 |
|
2.5 |
| Deutsche Bank |
2.3 |
|
2.3 |
| Wells Fargo |
0.3 |
1.4 |
1.7 |
| Lehman Brothers |
1.5 |
|
1.5 |
| Mizuho Financial |
1.5 |
|
1.5 |
| Other Canadian Banks |
1.4 |
0.1 |
1.5 |
| National City |
0.4 |
1 |
1.4 |
| Other Japanese Banks |
0.8 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
| Credit Suisse |
1 |
|
1 |
| Nomura Holdings |
0.9 |
|
0.9 |
| Societe General |
0.5 |
|
0.5 |
| Total |
106.9 |
25.9 |
132.8 |
* includes losses the company expects to report in the upcoming
quarters
Deteriorating financial performance reflected by the last two quarter results
The turmoil in the credit markets and the Bear Stearns exposure towards subprime
RMBS/CMBS and CDO investments negatively impacted the company's performance
in the last two quarters. The company reportedly wrote down $1.9 billion of
assets, $700 million more than announced in November 2007. The higher-than-anticipated
write downs, poor investment banking results and weaker equity trading revenues
saw Bear Stearns report a huge net loss of $6.90 per share significantly below
the market expectations. Bear Stearns capital markets segments reported negative
revenues primarily due to net inventory markdown in the fixed income business.
Revenues from the fixed income business were a negative $1.55 billion, driven
by the $1.9 billion of writedowns. Even after excluding the writedowns, Bear
Stearns fixed income revenues were a dismal $355 million, significantly lower
than 4Q 06.
In addition, the institutional equity and the investment banking businesses
also witnessed decline in revenues. Institutional equity business witnessed
a decline in revenues owing to weaker performance in the structured finance
products. The investment banking revenues were also under pressure reporting
a fall of 38% owing to lower high yield underwriting revenues resulting from
difficulties in the fixed income and capital market environment. However, the
growth in revenues in the Global Clearing Services and the Wealth Management
segments helped offset the decline in revenues witnessed in the Capital markets
segment.
Net income before tax (in US$ million) and y-o-y growth

Source: Company data
Wealth Management revenues to be under pressure
The failure of the two hedge funds of Bear Stearns have left the investors
stranded, frustrated, and more importantly, losing money. More and more investors
are suing Bear Stearns as they believe that the company misled them about the
funds performance. The funds, the High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund
and the High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund, sought
sanctuary from creditors by invoking jurisdiction defenses allowed by off shore
domiciles after investing heavily in CDOs backed by subprime mortgages. Barclays
PLC is suing Bear Stearns and two of its fund managers, as the collapse of
the funds resulted in huge losses for Barclays. We believe all this legal actions
will estrange Bear Stearns existing as well as potential clients putting undue
pressure on the company assets under management (AUM) growth. In the asset
management business, total AUM declined to $44.6 billion, compared to $57.8
billion in August 2007 and $52.5 billion at the end of the November 2006. The
decline was primarily due to the $8.8 billion transfer of assets related to
the spin out of O'Shaughnessy Asset Managemenint and poor performance. However,
we believe the reputation hit taken by the company will put the company under
pressure to generate higher revenues from this segment.
Bear Stearns lack of geographic diversification and overdependence on the
US continues to be a disadvantage for the company. The significance of international
diversification will become even more palpable in the near future as the US
credit and economic conditions realize the hard landing that I called for last
year, and continues to worsen. Bear Stearns derives 25% of its revenues from
outside US compared to 40% to 50% of its peers. In addition, Bear Stearns derives
a very large chunk of its net revenues from the fixed income business (almost
45%) business, which is at the forefront of the credit market turmoil. The
deterioration in the mortgage market is more detrimental to Bear Stearns as
compared to its peers as the company has a significantly higher interest in
the mortgage market as compared to its peers.
Compensation expenses to be under pressure in the coming quarters
Bear Stearns compensation expenses is anticipated to be under pressure as
the significant reduction in revenues of the company will not allow it to lower
its employee cost significantly in the short term. The compensation expense
as a percent of net revenues has increased to 57.1% in 2007 up from 47.1% in
2006. This was despite compensation expenses coming down to $326 million in
4Q 07 from $664 million in 3Q 07 and $1,052 million in 4Q 06. In addition,
the executive committee has decided that they will receive no compensation
this year (last year they made $156 million, or 3.6% of total compensation
expense).The increase in the severance expense, legal and other expenses will
drive the rise in the company's overall expenses.
Furthermore, if we compare the compensation expenses with its peers, the average
increase has been in the range of 20-21% with Lehman brothers giving a rise
of 10%, Goldman Sachs 23%, Morgan Stanley 19%. In this scenario, it is likely
to be extremely difficult for Bear to attract and more importantly retain people
who will make money (and in the past have made money) for them.
Compensation and benefits as a percentage of net revenues

Source: Company data
Pulling it all together - The Sensitivty Analysis and Valuation
Our Sensitivity analysis of its exposure towards riskier assets
| |
Base Case
Scenario |
Optimistic
Scenario |
Worst Case
Scenario |
In $ billion, unless
specified otherwise |
|
| Stockholder's equity |
11.8 |
11.8 |
11.8 |
| Total Capital |
80.3 |
80.3 |
80.3 |
Number of outstanding
shares (in mn) |
136.2 |
136.2 |
136.2 |
Bear Stearns Sensitivity
Analysis |
|
Losses on MBS&ABS
inventories |
6.7 |
3.5 |
9.3 |
Loss on couterparty
credit exposure |
0.7 |
0.2 |
1.4 |
Losses on Level 2
and 3 assets |
3.9 |
1.9 |
7.7 |
| |
| Total losses |
11 |
6 |
18 |
| Assumed tax rate |
35.0% |
35.0% |
35.0% |
| |
| After tax losses |
7 |
4 |
12 |
| |
Losses as a % of
statutory capital |
62.3% |
30.6% |
101.5% |
Losses as a % of
total capital |
9.1% |
4.5% |
14.9% |
| |
| Stockholders equity |
12 |
12 |
12 |
| Less : Total losses |
7 |
4 |
12 |
| |
New Stockholder's
equity |
4 |
8 |
(0) |
| |
Old Book value
per share |
84.1 |
84.1 |
84.1 |
New Book value
per share |
32.7 |
60.2 |
(1.3) |
Bear Stearns weighted average value per share, with forensic and economic
adjustments to risky assets and book value
| All Figures in Millions of Dollars, unless othrerwise
stated |
Base
Case |
Optimistic
Case |
Worst
Case |
| BVPS |
32.7 |
60.2 |
-1.3 |
| |
| Economic Value Per Share |
$33.8 |
$62.3 |
-$1.4 |
| |
| Current Stock Price |
$87.0 |
$87.0 |
$87.0 |
| Stated Book value per share |
84.09 |
84.09 |
84.09 |
| Current BV trading multiple |
1.03 |
1.03 |
1.0 |
We have analyzed Bear Stearns exposure towards subprime MBS & ABS portfolio,
the level 2 and 3 assets and its exposure towards counterparty credit risk
in assigning our fair value. To value Bear Stearns in this report we have considered
the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Price-to- adjusted book (P/ABV) and Price-to-Earnings
(P/E) multiple methods. After a thorough review of the results, I decided to
exclude the DCF analysis, primarily due to the theoretical nature of ascertaining
risk premia, and the amount of guesswork involved in creating future cash flow
streams. The DCF number would have raised the overall valuation by about 15%,
depending on the weighting assigned (this is partially due to our generosity
and conservatism in assigning quarterly revenue growth to BSC relative to its
peers - again guesswork). It threw off a number that was singificantly disparate
from that of the P/E and P/Adj. BV valuation models. Based on our final weighted
average valuation, we arrive at a fair value price for the Bear Stearns of
$36.42, which represent a downside of 58% from current level of $87.03.
| Weighted average price (US$) |
| Methodologies |
Weight
assigned |
Fair Price |
Weighted
average price |
| Fair price using P/Adj. BV approach |
50.00% |
33.84 |
16.92 |
| Fair price using P/E approach |
50.00% |
39.00 |
19.50 |
| Weighted average fair price |
36.42 |
| Current price |
87.03 |
| Upside from current levels (US$) |
-58.2% |
The book value numbers are after our economic marking and adjustments, of
course. The "E" portion of the P/E ration is quite conservative, since the
we built model incorporated BSC doing much better during the next 4 fiscal
quarters than their peers are reporting for this quarter, and in my opinion
BSC will not only fail to match their peers, but underperform due to the loss
of their primary value drivers - mortgage derivative and related fixed income
products - not to mention their asset management, legal, and litigation distractions
as well as client and talent retention issues.
Am I right about the Bear?
Despite the Bear Stearns negative developments, and my opinion of its value,
Bear Stearns has managed to find investors as was mentioned earlier in the
insider transaction section. These are accomplished and wealthy investors to
boot. My concern is that so many astute, accomplished and economically powerful
investors have failed to realize and fully appreciate the depth and breadth
of the current real asset recession, burst bubble, and quite possibly asset
depression we have recently entered. This has destroyed the value of many bottom
fishing value investors, both intitutional and retail.

A brief perusal through my site reveals a fairly decent track record of recognizing
the potential damage to be done by this "devaluation diaspora". Only time shall
tell the tale of Bear Stearn's contribution to this list. Twelve months to
date, BSC has lost over 50% of its share value and it near ground zero of the
housing bubble burst. Observing the share price patterns of the companies who
were actually at ground zero shows that a 50% is far from the midway mark when
tracking from the peak of the bubble. I am certain their may be financial concerns
such as well capitalized investment funds, foreign firms/funds, and/or stateside
banks who have, and are considering a buyout. Yet, as I have stated with Ambac
Financial, MBIA, Beazer Homes, and Countrywide during similar institutional
forays into attempted vulture investing - Caveat Emptor: Seeking the bottom
of a bottomless pit is a hazardous venture, indeed.
To date, I have been blessed with a modicum of accuracy in my research. As
always, I am short any company that I am bearish on, and will be long any company
that I am bullish on.

As with most firms on Wall Street today, financial leverage makes the good
times, good - but makes the bad times nigh unbearable. BSC is not the most
leveraged bank on the street, but it does employ more than enough leverage
to get itself into trouble. Trouble is where it is at now. It was excessive
leverage that exacerbated the problems at its hedge funds last summer.
|