Total Pageviews

California Inland Empire Still in Housing Tailspin

RIVERSIDE, Calif. â€" The one-story home that Scott and Summer Gieser just moved into is a far cry from the new two-story, four-bedroom house they owned before the great mortgage collapse.

Their sprawling house had termites and water damage when they bought it, but they counted themselves lucky. Given what has happened over the last five years, since the demise of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, it is a near miracle that the Giesers have a home at all. At times, they did not.

The couple personify the story of this region of desert scrub an hour east of Los Angeles, known as the Inland Empire. It is the tale of a soaring housing market, a hurtling crash and a recovery that has greatly lagged the rest of the country.

In several parts of California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada, real estate markets were built up with infusions of credit from Lehman and other Wall Street firms. The banks financed the construction of sprawling developments of tract homes, purchased the subprime mortgages that homeowners took out when they moved in and packaged them into bonds that were sold to investors.

The Inland Empire was the burning core of this speculative fever because of the availability of cheap land between Los Angeles and San Diego. In no other region of the country did subprime loans account for a bigger proportion of the overall mortgage market, according to a Federal Reserve study.

By the time he was 28, Mr. Gieser had become a force as a mortgage broker. He had billboards in downtown Riverside with his grinning face, advertising “Loans by Scott.” His own home was financed with an interest-only subprime loan.

But then, in a devastating feedback loop, real estate prices slowed and banks stopped lending, decimating Lehman’s investments and forcing it to declare bankruptcy five years ago on Sunday. That event was a moment of truth not just for the finance industry but also for millions of homeowners across the country. Just a few weeks after the filing in New York, the Giesers decided that they could no longer make their monthly mortgage payment.

While the financial industry â€" and large parts of the country â€" have largely rebounded since then, there are many communities where the fallout from Lehman’s collapse and the financial crisis is still a daily fact of life, and few places more so than the Inland Empire. The local employment market continues to languish and real estate prices are still 40 percent below their precrisis peak, according to CoreLogic.

Mr. Gieser experienced the collapse from both sides, as a real estate professional who lost his business and a homeowner who lost his house. For a while, he was driving between local parking lots, washing cars for $20 each.

Now, though, the Giesers are part of the area’s nascent recovery as real estate prices begin to recover some of their losses. Mr. Gieser has found clients looking to get back in, and he and his wife recently took advantage of the low prices to buy their new home. But the couple have no illusions about returning to the old ways.

“We’ll never live that life, even if I make that money again,” he said. “I’ve taken my licks. I got my wounds.”

Stories like Mr. Gieser’s are everywhere. Over the last five years, 220,000 Inland Empire homes have been seized by banks and sold out of foreclosure, according to Lender Processing Services. That is one foreclosure for every four mortgages â€" twice the rate for California as a whole.

In the labor market, three of the biggest sources of economic growth before the crisis â€" real estate, government and manufacturing â€" have all been in a tailspin. The construction industry has lost 68,000 jobs over the last five years, about the same amount that it gained in the decade before the collapse. Only now is there any sign of the losses reaching a bottom.

“We’re in the beginning of the fifth year of the national expansion â€" and then we have the Inland Empire,” said Jerry Nickelsburg, a forecaster in the business school at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It has not yet found the new engine of growth in the future. It’s in that twilight zone between its previous economy and its future economy.”

The upheaval has dealt a blow to both the economy and the psychology of the area, which used to be viewed as a promised land for many lower-income and immigrant families who could not afford a house with a yard in either Los Angeles or San Diego.

Mr. Gieser’s parents moved here from Los Angeles when he was a child; his mother became a real estate agent late in life. Mr. Gieser wanted to get into real estate almost as soon as he earned his G.E.D. and found work with a small company selling mortgages.

In the years after he started, banks were willing to offer loans to almost anyone who asked. The proceeds paid for a lavish life for Mr. Gieser and his wife, with weekend trips to San Diego and a Lexus in the driveway.

“Scott was making so much â€" I didn’t foresee him ever slowing down,” said Mrs. Gieser. “We didn’t foresee the market doing what it did.”

In 2007, the easy credit allowed the couple to buy a new two-story stucco home on Silver Dust Trail in Hemet, one of the many small towns where a Lehman-financed company, SunCal, turned empty desert into endless cul-de-sacs of tract homes. The Giesers’ home was paid for with a loan from the subprime division of the infamous lender Countrywide Financial, which did not require the couple to make a down payment or show proof of their income.

Signs of trouble began piling up even before the Giesers moved in. And once the collapse hit fully, the idea of a recovery seemed like a mirage. The Giesers went through their savings and tried to modify their mortgage three times. They were eventually forced to move out the day after Christmas in 2009, filing for bankruptcy. In the filing, Mr. Gieser listed his income in the first half of 2009 as $1,400.

Home prices in the Inland Empire fell 53 percent from the peak in 2006 to the trough in 2009. When the government-backed lender Fannie Mae sold the Giesers’ house again in 2010, it went for exactly half of the $320,000 they paid three years earlier.

Mr. Gieser and his wife first moved back in with his parents, sharing his childhood bedroom with their newborn son. They were kept afloat by Summer Gieser’s job doing background employment checks.

The turnaround began modestly, when Mr. Gieser found work showing homes that banks had seized â€" earning $50 a trip. That allowed the couple to move out of his parent’s house into a rental, and for Scott to find a job as an assistant to Doug Shepherd, the owner of the Shepherd Realty Group.

Mr. Shepherd said that Mr. Gieser’s past financial difficulties did not put him off. “A lot of good people got into bad situations,” Mr. Shepherd said.

Initially the homes were mostly foreclosure collateral. The buyers were often investors looking for properties they could rent out to the legions of people who had lost their homes.

Those forces have helped push prices up 12 percent last year and 15 percent so far this year, CoreLogic figures show.

More recently, demand for homes has also come from families like the Giesers, who filed for bankruptcy or lost their homes in the years after the crisis. Mr. Shepherd said that Mr. Gieser had used his own experience to cater to these clients.

“He can look people in the eye and say, ‘I understand what you are going through, but there is hope,’ ” Mr. Shepherd said.

The Giesers counted down to the anniversary of their own bankruptcy last December, when they could borrow again. They immediately put in a bid for a home on a leafy street in Riverside that had been built in the 1950s.

When the deal finally went through in July, the Giesers paid with a fixed 30-year mortgage from the Federal Housing Administration. The night of the closing, they sat in the empty living room.

“We just stared at each other in disbelief, that we did it,” Mr. Gieser said.



With Facebook’s Tumultuous I.P.O. in Mind, Twitter Tries to Value Its Shares

It has more than 200 million active users. It played a central role in the protests against governments in the Middle East a couple of years ago. And it appeals to a generation of Internet users who relish publicly expressing themselves in short bursts of 140 characters or less.

But how much is Twitter really worth?

That is the question investors will have to grapple with as Twitter’s bankers begin the task of selling shares in the company in the coming weeks. With enthusiasm for Internet companies â€" and in particular, social media firms â€" heating up again, Twitter may have little trouble persuading buyers to pay up. But Facebook’s botched I.P.O. last year, and the drubbing its shares suffered in the ensuing months, show that even the most highly anticipated technology offerings can swoon badly.

One aspect of Twitter’s I.P.O. could hamper investors’ ability to determine the right price for the company. The company is taking advantage of a law approved last year that allows it to keep its financial data confidential until three weeks before its shares are marketed. Facebook released financial statements three and a half months before its stock offering in May 2012. That gave investors ample time to weigh Facebook’s prospects before deciding whether to participate.

“I see no reason why Twitter should not open its books to public scrutiny,” said Anup Srivastava, an assistant professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “Why wait until the last minute?” Until the official Wall Street sales pitches begin, outsiders only have minimal information to go on. One piece of data is an estimate of revenue, which Twitter records when it charges for the advertisements that are inserted into users’ streams of messages. It also licenses user activity data to outside firms.

Twitter’s revenue is expected to reach nearly $600 million this year, according to internal projections and the research firm eMarketer. Investors are using that figure as a starting point for arriving at an overall value for the company. Today, for instance, the total value of Facebook’s shares on the stock market is about 15 times the revenue that analysts expect the company to post this year. Applying that multiple to Twitter’s forecast revenue of $600 million this year values the company at $9 billion.

This is an imperfect approach, since it ignores costs. Also, 15 times is more than double the sales multiple for Google, which has long been the Big Daddy in Web advertising.

Mr. Srivastava is skeptical of the high valuations placed on relatively young companies. “It looks like the Internet bubble all over again,” he said.

But the doubters are likely to be drowned out. Bullish market participants find it easy to make their case when companies like Twitter appear capable of posting high growth rates into the foreseeable future.

Kevin Landis, chief investment officer at Firsthand Funds, which bought Twitter shares on the private market, is an optimist about the company. He said there were reasons Twitter should have an even higher valuation than Facebook. For instance, Twitter, he said, already has a strategy for mobile devices. Facebook was still working out its approach to mobile devices when it went public. And since it is a younger company, Twitter may also be able to increase its earnings more quickly than its established rivals.

“What people are doing when they buy a growth stock is asking where the company might end up, ” Mr. Landis said.

Advertising dollars pour into Facebook and Google because people spend so much time on those companies’ Web pages. Twitter has substantially fewer users, but it must nevertheless try to convince advertisers that its users are as valuable.

One reason companies say they use Twitter is that it offers them a chance to interact quickly with trends and “conversations” that take place on the service. Such campaigns can also be timed to coincide with prominent events on television.

Honda advertises on Twitter and used it as part of a broad summer campaign that helped generate 20 percent more in auto sales this July than in July 2012. “Twitter certainly contributed to that,” Alicia Jones, a social marketing manager at Honda, said.

Still, Twitter may yet hit choppy waters. Its short-message format does not appeal to everyone. If it fails to add large numbers of new users, it may be perceived as a niche player. To branch out, Twitter will mostly likely have to spend a lot of money on new technology. Facebook had to spend substantial sums to support its mobile initiatives. Those appear to be paying off now, but they are a reminder that expansion into new areas can be costly. Anyone sizing up Twitter as an investment needs to estimate how much the company may have to spend to stay relevant on the Internet.

The credibility of Twitter’s top officers, including its chief executive, Dick Costolo, will be tested during the I.P.O. process. Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities, said Twitter could learn from some of Facebook’s missteps. Facebook executives, he said, had not been sufficiently open about the company’s activities, and had not given enough detail on the company’s expenses. “Let’s hope Twitter understands that it has to court investors,” he said.

As the conversation about Twitter intensifies, investors may be wise to keep Facebook’s turbulent past in mind. Buying shares at the I.P.O. led to losses, though shares in Facebook are now higher than the offering price. But being bearish as the company recovered also was a bad bet.

The dilemma boils down to this: What should investors pay for a seemingly well-run and popular company? Or as one Twitter user, @EpicureanDeal, posted on the service on Friday: “Re Twitter’s IPO: you need to understand that a good firm, a profitable firm, and an attractive stock investment can be 3 unrelated things.”



Wall Street Gears Up for a Twitter I.P.O.

Four big banks are said to have secured roles in Twitter’s highly anticipated initial public offering, according to people briefed on the matter.

Goldman Sachs will take the lead role, giving it the most control over the process, and the largest slice of the millions of dollars in fees. JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch are also serving as underwriters for the I.P.O, these people said.

People involved with the process said a fifth bank, which could not be determined, may also play a role.

Barclays, Citigroup and Credit Suisse, three banks that played a role in Facebook’s I.P.O last year, were said not to be involved at the moment.

Still, these people cautioned that Twitter was still putting together the final syndicate, and that more banks could be added.

Goldman Sachs was said to have secured its role as the “lead left” position in the list of underwriters weeks ago, these people said, with other banks notified only in recent days.

Goldman’s leading role marks a setback for Morgan Stanley, which led the Facebook I.P.O. and is regarded as having the strongest equity capital markets practice in the technology sector.

Speculation that Morgan Stanley was in line to lead the Twitter I.P.O. grew earlier this year after the San Francisco-based social media company hired one of the firm’s bankers, Cynthia Gaylor. Ms. Gaylor had advised other technology companies on I.P.O.s in the past, and joined Twitter to lead corporate development. Announcing her move, she posted her first tweet: “look forward to joining and focusing on M&A + strategy. pointed north … let the migration begin!”

The banks jockeying for position are competing as much for prestige and marketing power as they are for fees. Companies that go public will typically split a small percentage of the overall money raised between the banks involved. For example when Facebook went public last year, raising $16 billion, it split 1.1 percent, or about $160 million, between as many as nine banks.

Though it is not yet clear how much Twitter plans to raise, the sum is likely to be much smaller than Facebook’s huge haul.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Barclays, Credit Suisse and Twitter all declined to comment.



Wall Street Gears Up for a Twitter I.P.O.

Four big banks are said to have secured roles in Twitter’s highly anticipated initial public offering, according to people briefed on the matter.

Goldman Sachs will take the lead role, giving it the most control over the process, and the largest slice of the millions of dollars in fees. JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch are also serving as underwriters for the I.P.O, these people said.

People involved with the process said a fifth bank, which could not be determined, may also play a role.

Barclays, Citigroup and Credit Suisse, three banks that played a role in Facebook’s I.P.O last year, were said not to be involved at the moment.

Still, these people cautioned that Twitter was still putting together the final syndicate, and that more banks could be added.

Goldman Sachs was said to have secured its role as the “lead left” position in the list of underwriters weeks ago, these people said, with other banks notified only in recent days.

Goldman’s leading role marks a setback for Morgan Stanley, which led the Facebook I.P.O. and is regarded as having the strongest equity capital markets practice in the technology sector.

Speculation that Morgan Stanley was in line to lead the Twitter I.P.O. grew earlier this year after the San Francisco-based social media company hired one of the firm’s bankers, Cynthia Gaylor. Ms. Gaylor had advised other technology companies on I.P.O.s in the past, and joined Twitter to lead corporate development. Announcing her move, she posted her first tweet: “look forward to joining and focusing on M&A + strategy. pointed north … let the migration begin!”

The banks jockeying for position are competing as much for prestige and marketing power as they are for fees. Companies that go public will typically split a small percentage of the overall money raised between the banks involved. For example when Facebook went public last year, raising $16 billion, it split 1.1 percent, or about $160 million, between as many as nine banks.

Though it is not yet clear how much Twitter plans to raise, the sum is likely to be much smaller than Facebook’s huge haul.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Barclays, Credit Suisse and Twitter all declined to comment.



Weekend Reading: Dollars Trump Caution in Twitter I.P.O.

Investors’ current yearning for the speedy growth of mobile advertising revenue at social media companies has overcome their wariness after the dreadful initial public offering of Facebook last year.

Social networking sites, including Facebook, are now trading at lofty levels. That clamor has created an environment where a company with expected revenue of $600 million this year will be able to seek billions of dollars in its offering. Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, told The New York Times that Twitter was now valued at $15 billion to $16 billion, based on buying in the private market.

A look back on our reporting of the past week’s highs and lows in finance.

THURSDAY, SEPT. 12

A Short Post, a Big Splash: #TwitterIPO | The company announced â€" in a tweet â€" that it had filed paperwork with regulators to eventually sell shares in an initial public offering. DealBook »

Deal Professor: An Initial Filing, in Fewer Than 140 Characters | A prominent company, known around the world, has filed for what will most likely be the most anticipated stock offering since Facebook â€" and we know precious little about its business, says Steven M. Davidoff. DealBook »

2 Consultants to Banking Come Under Scrutiny | New York State has subpoenaed Promontory Financial Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers as part of a broader investigation into the industry’s perceived coziness with Wall Street. DealBook »

Long Battle for Dell Ends in Victory for Founder | Michael S. Dell is finally poised to buy full control of the company that bears his name, but a newly private Dell will most likely look much like the current one. DealBook »

Federal Judge Approves American Airlines’ Plan to Exit Bankruptcy | The decision was contingent on Justice Department approval of the carrier’s merger with US Airways. DealBook »

In Hilton Offering, a Losing Deal Turns Around | If successful, the Hilton public offering would be a powerful vindication of Blackstone’s real estate strategy and prove that even some seemingly doomed deals can yield generous returns given enough time. DealBook »

Regulators Ask Markets to Improve Technology | The Securities and Exchange Commission is asking the nation’s stock exchanges to introduce “kill switches” and other technological changes. DealBook »

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 11

Regulator Says Rules on Insurer Don’t Work | Benjamin Lawsky, the New York financial regulator, has left a multistate test of a framework for insurers’ asset reserves, saying industry “gamesmanship” was only getting worse. DealBook »

Easy Money for Making Deals | The ease at which Verizon has borrowed $49 billion has fueled speculation that more companies will soon tap the debt markets for large acquisitions. DealBook »

Tribes Challenge New York’s Authority Over Their Lending | Two tribes, each halfway across the country, have come under scrutiny in New York over their online lending operations that offer short-term loans at exorbitant interest rates. DealBook »

Money Manager Takes Big Stake in News Corp. | Southeastern Asset Management, the money manager that fought the buyout of Dell, has taken a 12 percent voting stake in News Corporation, making it the second-largest investor behind Rupert Murdoch. DealBook »

New Chapter in a Clash Over Bonds in Argentina | The United States Supreme Court could decide within weeks whether to take up a drawn-out battle between the Argentine government and creditors seeking repayment on bonds that Argentina defaulted on over 10 years ago. DealBook »

TUESDAY, SEPT. 10

Lawyers for Corzine Seek Case’s Dismissal | Lawyers for the former New Jersey governor filed a motion to dismiss a civil case against him brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulated MF Global until its demise in 2011. DealBook »

Dow Index Replaces 3 of Its 30 Stocks | Alcoa, Bank of America and Hewlett-Packard have fallen out of favor lately with investors and will be replaced by Goldman Sachs, Visa and Nike. DealBook »

Deal Professor: A Trading Frenzy Over Oh-So-Hot LinkedIn Shares | Steven M. Davidoff asks, did LinkedIn benefit its shareholders with its recent sale of stock worth $1.2 billion at $223 a share? DealBook »

MONDAY, SEPT. 9

Invasive Tactic in Foreclosures Draws Scrutiny | Property-management companies are coming under fire for using questionable and possibly illegal tactics in their work for banks. DealBook »

Koch Brothers Make Offer of $7 Billion for Molex | The deal, for a company that makes electronics plugs for a range of products including the iPhone 5, is the biggest by Koch Industries in eight years. DealBook »

A $250 Million Pledge to a College Evaporates as a Deal Collapses | Centre College in Danville, Ky., announced in July that it had received a $250 million donation, the largest outright gift ever made to a liberal arts college, but it left out a small detail. DealBook »

DealBook Column: What Might Have Been, and the Fall of Lehman | Five years ago, the government abandoned Lehman Brothers to its fate. Andrew Ross Sorkin asks, was it a mistake, or did it help bring the financial crisis under control?DealBook »

The Trade: Seeking Answers From Green Mountain Coffee | The sales figures at Green Mountain, the roaster behind the popular Keurig coffee makers, don’t seem to add up, says Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica. DealBook »

WEEK IN VERSE

‘Blackbird’ | If the Twitter icon had a favorite Beatle it would be George Harrison. 140 characters is just right for the quiet types. YouTube »

‘Total Eclipse of the Heart’ | If Dell is serious about a turnaround, Bonnie Tyler’s 1983 power ballad should be their anthem. YouTube »



Weekend Reading: Dollars Trump Caution in Twitter I.P.O.

Investors’ current yearning for the speedy growth of mobile advertising revenue at social media companies has overcome their wariness after the dreadful initial public offering of Facebook last year.

Social networking sites, including Facebook, are now trading at lofty levels. That clamor has created an environment where a company with expected revenue of $600 million this year will be able to seek billions of dollars in its offering. Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, told The New York Times that Twitter was now valued at $15 billion to $16 billion, based on buying in the private market.

A look back on our reporting of the past week’s highs and lows in finance.

THURSDAY, SEPT. 12

A Short Post, a Big Splash: #TwitterIPO | The company announced â€" in a tweet â€" that it had filed paperwork with regulators to eventually sell shares in an initial public offering. DealBook »

Deal Professor: An Initial Filing, in Fewer Than 140 Characters | A prominent company, known around the world, has filed for what will most likely be the most anticipated stock offering since Facebook â€" and we know precious little about its business, says Steven M. Davidoff. DealBook »

2 Consultants to Banking Come Under Scrutiny | New York State has subpoenaed Promontory Financial Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers as part of a broader investigation into the industry’s perceived coziness with Wall Street. DealBook »

Long Battle for Dell Ends in Victory for Founder | Michael S. Dell is finally poised to buy full control of the company that bears his name, but a newly private Dell will most likely look much like the current one. DealBook »

Federal Judge Approves American Airlines’ Plan to Exit Bankruptcy | The decision was contingent on Justice Department approval of the carrier’s merger with US Airways. DealBook »

In Hilton Offering, a Losing Deal Turns Around | If successful, the Hilton public offering would be a powerful vindication of Blackstone’s real estate strategy and prove that even some seemingly doomed deals can yield generous returns given enough time. DealBook »

Regulators Ask Markets to Improve Technology | The Securities and Exchange Commission is asking the nation’s stock exchanges to introduce “kill switches” and other technological changes. DealBook »

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 11

Regulator Says Rules on Insurer Don’t Work | Benjamin Lawsky, the New York financial regulator, has left a multistate test of a framework for insurers’ asset reserves, saying industry “gamesmanship” was only getting worse. DealBook »

Easy Money for Making Deals | The ease at which Verizon has borrowed $49 billion has fueled speculation that more companies will soon tap the debt markets for large acquisitions. DealBook »

Tribes Challenge New York’s Authority Over Their Lending | Two tribes, each halfway across the country, have come under scrutiny in New York over their online lending operations that offer short-term loans at exorbitant interest rates. DealBook »

Money Manager Takes Big Stake in News Corp. | Southeastern Asset Management, the money manager that fought the buyout of Dell, has taken a 12 percent voting stake in News Corporation, making it the second-largest investor behind Rupert Murdoch. DealBook »

New Chapter in a Clash Over Bonds in Argentina | The United States Supreme Court could decide within weeks whether to take up a drawn-out battle between the Argentine government and creditors seeking repayment on bonds that Argentina defaulted on over 10 years ago. DealBook »

TUESDAY, SEPT. 10

Lawyers for Corzine Seek Case’s Dismissal | Lawyers for the former New Jersey governor filed a motion to dismiss a civil case against him brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulated MF Global until its demise in 2011. DealBook »

Dow Index Replaces 3 of Its 30 Stocks | Alcoa, Bank of America and Hewlett-Packard have fallen out of favor lately with investors and will be replaced by Goldman Sachs, Visa and Nike. DealBook »

Deal Professor: A Trading Frenzy Over Oh-So-Hot LinkedIn Shares | Steven M. Davidoff asks, did LinkedIn benefit its shareholders with its recent sale of stock worth $1.2 billion at $223 a share? DealBook »

MONDAY, SEPT. 9

Invasive Tactic in Foreclosures Draws Scrutiny | Property-management companies are coming under fire for using questionable and possibly illegal tactics in their work for banks. DealBook »

Koch Brothers Make Offer of $7 Billion for Molex | The deal, for a company that makes electronics plugs for a range of products including the iPhone 5, is the biggest by Koch Industries in eight years. DealBook »

A $250 Million Pledge to a College Evaporates as a Deal Collapses | Centre College in Danville, Ky., announced in July that it had received a $250 million donation, the largest outright gift ever made to a liberal arts college, but it left out a small detail. DealBook »

DealBook Column: What Might Have Been, and the Fall of Lehman | Five years ago, the government abandoned Lehman Brothers to its fate. Andrew Ross Sorkin asks, was it a mistake, or did it help bring the financial crisis under control?DealBook »

The Trade: Seeking Answers From Green Mountain Coffee | The sales figures at Green Mountain, the roaster behind the popular Keurig coffee makers, don’t seem to add up, says Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica. DealBook »

WEEK IN VERSE

‘Blackbird’ | If the Twitter icon had a favorite Beatle it would be George Harrison. 140 characters is just right for the quiet types. YouTube »

‘Total Eclipse of the Heart’ | If Dell is serious about a turnaround, Bonnie Tyler’s 1983 power ballad should be their anthem. YouTube »



Why Lehman Wasn’t Rescued

Outside Lehman Brothers headquarters in New York on Sept. 15, 2008.Nicholas Roberts/Agence France-Presse â€" Getty Images Outside Lehman Brothers headquarters in New York on Sept. 15, 2008.

Phillip Swagel is a professor at the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland and was assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department from 2006 to 2009.

Five years after the tumultuous week in which Lehman Brothers failed, A.I.G. was rescued by the Federal Reserve from failure, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program was proposed, it is still often asked whether Lehman could have been saved by the federal government rather than filing for bankruptcy early on the morning of Monday, Sept. 15, 2008. After all, policy makers had intervened to prevent the bankruptcy of A.I.G. just two days later and saved Bear Stearns back in March 2008. Surely, the question inevitably goes, the same could have been done for Lehman, and thus (by some lines of reasoning) the worst part of the financial crisis and ensuing recession averted.

I was a senior official at the Treasury during this period as the assistant secretary for economic policy â€" chief economist for Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. I did not work on the Lehman or A.I.G. transactions, but have written at length about the crisis and will write further in this season of anniversary. But it is worthwhile addressing this question by itself, one that has been raised recently in a column in The New York Times.

Lehman failed before TARP was passed or even proposed to the Congress. This meant that the Treasury Department had no legal authority to put government money into the firm or provide a guarantee for its obligations. This changed with the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Bill on Oct. 3, 2008, which provided $700 billion in TARP financing to be used to purchase troubled assets (used in the end mostly to purchase preferred shares in banks).

The Treasury did have the exchange stabilization fund, which was then a roughly $50 billion pot of money meant to be used to stabilize the value of the United States dollar. The failure of Lehman, while something that Secretary Paulson and others had worked around the clock to avoid, was not seen at the Treasury as an event that by itself threatened the stability of the dollar.

The exchange stabilization fund was used later in the week as the financial backing behind a Treasury guarantee for money market mutual funds, which faced panicked withdrawals in the wake of problems at the Reserve Primary Fund. But this use followed broader difficulties, as short-term credit markets were severely strained by the fallout from the money market mutual debacle, as American corporations that relied on sales of short-term commercial paper to the funds had to scramble for other sources of cash for their day-to-day needs.  

The money market problems could not reasonably have been anticipated; indeed, in retrospect it seems reckless for a money market fund that portrayed itself as safe to have taken on the risk of a sizable exposure to Lehman securities. Even the usage of the exchange stabilization fund to prop up money market funds, while essential to end the run on short-term credit markets, was seen as tenuous by Congress, which forbade a repeat of it in the subsequent Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.

In sum, the Treasury did not have the ability to put government money into Lehman and did not have the authority to guarantee its operations for a private acquirer such as Barclays, the British bank that was contemplating purchasing Lehman.

At the time that Lehman failed, the Federal Reserve under its Section 13(3) emergency powers could lend money to any firm in the case of “unusual and exigent circumstances.” This authority was narrowed by the Dodd-Frank legislation to restrict loans to classes of firms rather than individual ones and to require the approval of the Treasury secretary along with a vote of the Fed’s governing board, but even in 2008 a requirement for the Fed to act was that any credit had to be secured by collateral. The Fed could not legally make a loan on which it expected to take a loss.

As the New York Fed general counsel, Thomas Baxter, explained in 2010 testimony to the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission, the Federal Reserve did not believe that Lehman possessed the necessary collateral against which the Fed could provide the financing necessary to avert a bankruptcy filing.  Indeed, Lehman was widely viewed by market participants as insolvent, requiring other industry participants to come up with tens of billions of dollars even to make possible the acquisition considered by Barclays.

This transaction in the end did not take place, in part because the potential acquirer sought for the Fed or Treasury to shoulder the risks of any losses from Lehman’s assets until Barclays shareholders had approved the transaction. The Treasury could not do this (before TARP), while for the Fed such a guarantee would have exposed it to the full scope of losses embedded at Lehman â€" again, a nonstarter given the legal requirement that the Fed’s financial exposure be collateralized.

The reluctance of the Federal Reserve to lend to Lehman contrasts with its actions regarding Bear Stearns and A.I.G. The difference is that in the other two cases, the Fed saw itself as lending against reasonable collateral.

In the case of the Fed’s loans that facilitated the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase, $29 billion of Fed money was at risk against a collection of Bear Stearns assets thought to be worth $30 billion. JPMorgan would absorb the first $1 billion if the value of those assets declined, providing a cushion ahead of the Fed (that is, ahead of taxpayers). Those assets were good in the end, with the Fed fully repaid with interest.

In the case of A.I.G., the Fed’s loans were collateralized by the entire assets of the firm, based on the observation that A.I.G. had potentially huge losses at its unit that sold credit default swaps but the rest of the firm was a successful insurer. The latter parts â€" the rest of the company â€" provided the collateral for the Fed’s initial loans, and eventually TARP funds were substituted for the Fed resources to provide the company with a better capital base rather than Fed loans. To be sure, it was hard to know in September 2008 that the value of the company would offset the potential losses in A.I.G.’s financial products division, but this turned out to be the case, with both the Treasury and the Fed turning considerable profits on their investments in A.I.G.

Such a successful outcome was simply less imaginable with Lehman than with either Bear Stearns or A.I.G. To all eyes, the problem at Lehman was one of solvency while the issue in the other two cases was liquidity. The Fed’s actions on Bear and A.I.G. were thus appropriate in its role as a lender of last resort and the same with its caution at Lehman. Indeed, after Lehman had filed for bankruptcy, the Fed did extend loans to allow the firm’s broker-deal subsidiary to function, but in bankruptcy these loans could be fully collateralized by assets within the brokerage subsidiary and not encumbered by obligations in other parts of the larger firm.

These legalities are of little consolation to former Lehman employees whose lives were upended, or to the millions of people who suffered immense financial losses. In a 2009 analysis written for the Pew Charitable Trusts, I calculated the cost of the financial crisis as $5,800 per American family in 2008 and 2009 alone. Others have subsequently used a similar methodology and calculated the overall economic losses as ranging into the trillions of dollars.

Imagine if the Federal Reserve itself had discarded the legalities and simply extended credit or a guarantee to Lehman to avert its bankruptcy, even while believing that the firm did not have adequate collateral to safeguard the Fed’s loans. In this case, the subsequent losses would have fallen directly on taxpayers, whose exposure would have been open-ended up to the full amount of potential losses in the firm’s assets. Such an exposure to losses is appropriately beyond the legal authority of the Federal Reserve and instead requires an act of Congress.

The orderly liquidation authority in Title II of the Dodd-Frank legislation provides legal authority in certain circumstances for the federal government to put taxpayer funds into a failing firm to keep it afloat as part of a plan to resolve the company (that is, to wind down or sell off the failing firm to other private investors).  Importantly, the Dodd-Frank law requires that any losses involved in propping up a failing company must be absorbed by private investors, including the shareholders of the firm, the lenders to it, and ultimately other financial firms rather than taxpayers.

It is quite likely that this authority would have been used had it been available when Lehman failed in September 2008. After all, government officials went to great lengths to arrange for private financing of Lehman, an effort that failed when Barclays, the last potential buyer of the firm, was unable to proceed with the acquisition ahead of the bankruptcy. With the new Dodd-Frank power, the federal government could have provided the financing that Barclays was looking for while it sought shareholder approval, on the condition that any losses suffered by Lehman during this period of uncertainty ultimately would be borne by other financial firms and not taxpayers.

This orderly resolution authority has not yet been used, and it is not clear if it will be successful â€" indeed, a report from a project on financial regulatory reform of which I am co-director at the Bipartisan Policy Center provides dozens of recommendations to policy makers on how the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should exercise its new authority. Still, there is the possibility that the new authority in Dodd-Frank will provide the tools that were not available to policy makers five years ago when Lehman failed.



The Dell Deal Showed How Deals Aren’t Supposed to Work

The months of torment in taking Dell private have at last ended. But the lessons will probably go unlearned.

Shareholders have finally approved the $25 billion buyout by the founder, Michael Dell, and the investment firm Silver Lake Partners, after three postponed votes and a measly 2 percent price increase. Overconfidence and delay got the better of both sides â€" and speculators succumbed to their overactive imaginations.

When the buyout was announced in February, its backers were confident that approval wouldn’t be a problem. Yet big shareholders, like Southeastern Asset Management, were convinced that the founder was trying to steal the company. Both sets of beliefs had some foundation. The buyers knew rivals were unlikely to crash the party, as Mr. Dell probably wouldn’t roll his shares into a competing bid, which meant alternate buyers would have to find a lot more equity. And insiders’ knowledge of a company and sway over the board make management buyouts rife with conflicts of interest that can be exploited.

These conflicting perspectives created overconfidence. The deal might have passed on its initial try had the buyers not disregarded the important detail that abstentions counted as “no” votes. Dissidents ignored Dell’s imploding business and nearly torpedoed the deal â€" which would have sent the stock plunging â€" for what in the end was a nominal increase in the takeout price.

The seven-month process damaged the company. Management’s attention was focused elsewhere while tablets continued to chomp into Dell’s person computer business. And the contentious battle hurt Dell’s brand and the willingness of its clients to buy its gear. The board was forced to show how precarious the company’s situation was to justify its acceptance of the bid. So the buyer is getting a dinged company.

Finally, the prolonged battle made monkeys out of outside analysts. They seriously pondered the idea of Carl C. Icahn buying the company via a recapitalization using a technique known as stub equity. In such a deal, the buyout group takes control of a company by buying a majority stake but leaves some portion â€" the stub â€" in shareholders’ hands. That Mr. Icahn rarely succeeds in taking over companies was swept aside, as was the fact his numbers didn’t add up. And stub equity is nearly impossible to structure in any deal because it creates huge conflicts of interest and leaves companies too indebted.

Mr. Dell’s deal may have been a torment for all the participants, but it was of their own creation.

Robert Cyran is a columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. For more independent commentary and analysis, visit breakingviews.com.



When ‘More, Bigger, Faster’ Is Not Better

DALIAN, China â€" What quality ought we value most in leaders?

That’s the question I’ve been thinking about all week at the World Economic Forum‘s annual meeting here, known as Summer Davos. It brought together some 1700 chief and senior executives from 90 countries around the world.

At a workshop titled “Reinventing the Workplace,” the desirable quality that came up most frequently among the 70 or so leaders who attended was authenticity. When we think of authenticity, we typically think of honesty, openness and realness. But is authenticity a virtue by itself?

Any virtue overused eventually becomes toxic. Too much honesty, for example, turns into cruelty. What we really want from leaders is authenticity tempered by compassion. We do want our leaders to acknowledge their frailties and missteps, but excessive vulnerability and openness starts to feel treacly and unnerving.

What we want most of all, I believe, are leaders capable of embracing their own opposites â€" and our own â€" with nuance and subtlety. In corporate speak, that is no easy deliverable. It requires a level of self-awareness and reflection that has been neither expected from corporate leaders, nor especially valued. What’s been valued instead is decisiveness: a bias for action, transaction and speed.

I experienced this over and over as I wandered through the soaring, swooping, yet surprisingly sterile new convention center here in Dalian. It’s an impressive architectural achievement, but for me at least, it felt cavernous and eerily empty inside. In much the same way, I couldn’t help but be impressed by the external achievements of the group gathered here. They think fast, talk fast and move fast, and yet something still seemed missing.

The 23-year-old chief executive of a technology start-up told me about how, over the last couple of years, he’s regularly slept two to four hours a night as he builds his company. A 67-year-old futurist told me with a hint of pride about flying between a half-dozen cities in the United States, Europe and Asia in the last 10 days. A fiercely intense 30-year-old woman who founded and serves as chief executive of a fast-growing oil and gas company described her life’s ambition as “building a much bigger version of what I have now.”

For 200 years now, ever since the Industrial Revolution, the prevailing mantra in corporate life has been “more, bigger, faster.” For many of the leaders I met this week , younger and older alike, growing means building
bigger and bigger companies.

“A business cannot truly evolve,” John Mackey, a co-founder of Whole Foods Market, has written, “if its leaders, particularly the C.E.O., are not learning and growing as well. Companies can become blocked from essential organizational evolution if their founder is psychologically and spiritually stuck.” To become a conscious leader, you have to aspire to be one. Personal growth is no easy thing and usually involves some pain.

It’s easy to dismiss this sort of talk as soft-headed and self-indulgent. Indeed, staying endlessly busy is a way to avoid the issue all together. But it’s also possible to define growth concretely and substantively. It means becoming progressively more conscious and capable, much the way we do as children growing up.

Adult development doesn’t have to end at the age of consent, or when we finish our formal education. We can learn to see more deeply, through our fears and self-deceptions; more widely, beyond our self-absorption to
a more inclusive capacity for care and concern; and longer term, past our immediate preoccupations and short-term cravings.

A leader’s job is not simply to do this work for personal benefit, but also to serve as a role model and a source of inspiration to others.

At the most practical level, seeing more serves as a source of competitive advantage in a world in which even the most extraordinary product breakthroughs quickly become yesterday’s news. Just ask Apple.

I did see signs of leaders becoming willing to challenge their own limits. For example, I spent some time with the 50-something chief executive of an old-economy Fortune 100 company. He told me that focusing on the mental and emotional well-being of his employees was his company’s next challenge and biggest opportunity. And he plans to do the same for himself. He is beginning to hold his own opposites â€" taking care of himself and others, focusing both on inner and outer life.

It’s never too late. If Rupert Murdoch can take up transcendental meditation at the age of 82, anything is possible.

About the Author

Tony Schwartz is the chief executive of the Energy Project and the author, most recently, of “Be Excellent at Anything: The Four Keys to Transforming the Way We Work and Live.” Twitter: @tonyschwartz



On Twitter’s Big Day, Tweeting About Twitter

Twitter couldn’t have promoted its services any better.

For starters, it was fitting that the company used a short post via its own platform to announce on Thursday its plans to sell its stock to the public. Perhaps not unexpected, legions of Twitter users responded in kind to the news by taking to Twitter, dashing off hundreds of tweets, full of jokes and serious analysis.

The reaction seemed to confirm Twitter’s dominant position as a global forum for public conversation. Not only were journalists and other observers using Twitter to comment, but also company insiders were using Twitter to broadcast their thoughts on the planned offering.

Twitter will have to devise strategies to make enough money to justify the hype and what is projected to be an expensive valuation. But on Thursday, at least, the company enjoyed a day in the virtual sun.

First, the tweet that launched a thousand more:

Then, early investors in Twitter cheered the announcement â€" obliquely, in the case of Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist. Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, and Sean Garrett, the company’s former communications vice president, also shared their thoughts.

Thursday was also the 40th birthday of Twitter’s president of global revenue, Adam Bain, who said he had spent a “day with clients.”

In addition to spreading news of the I.P.O. plans through retweets, many Twitter users â€" including journalists, tech entrepreneurs and investors â€" began to riff on the planned I.P.O. Aaron Levie, the chief executive of the online data storage company Box, offered his congratulations.

Many of the tweets were playful.

Some of the comments centered on the way Twitter announced its big news.

The confidential nature of Twitter’s filing caused some initial head-scratching, followed by analysis of what it meant.

Some Twitter users speculated about what the ticker symbol might be.

Others focused on the underwriters for the offering â€" a coveted assignment on Wall Street.

A few tried to communicate with Twitter insiders.

But Twitter had the last word.



Morning Agenda: Twitter’s I.P.O. Plans

#TWITTERIPO  |  Twitter, the microblogging service that has grown into one of the world’s largest platforms for public conversation, is about to take a big step into maturity by selling stock to the public. The company announced on Thursday â€" in a tweet, naturally â€" that it had filed paperwork with regulators to eventually sell shares in an initial public offering, Vindu Goel, Nick Bilton and David Gelles report in DealBook.

But investors, for now, are not able to take a look at Twitter’s financials. The company filed its first documents months ago under a special provision of securities law that allows a company with less than $1 billion in annual revenue to keep its financial data secret until it actively begins marketing its stock. For that, Twitter can thank the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS, Act, which became law in 2012.

“Among the concerns that opponents of the law had was exactly the kind of situation that is now going on with Twitter: a prominent company, known around the world, has filed for what will most likely be the most anticipated stock offering since Facebook â€" and we know precious little about its business,” Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column.

Twitter’s caution follows the disastrous debut of its archrival, Facebook, whose stock plunged after the I.P.O. in May 2012. But investors recently have become enamored of all things social and mobile. Facebook’s shares hit a record high this week and ended Thursday at $44.75, well above the $38 I.P.O. price; LinkedIn, the business-oriented social network, is trading at nosebleed levels.

“By its own estimates, Twitter was profitable in December of last year and generated more than $100 million in revenue in the final quarter of 2012, according to numbers in an e-mail shared among staff. These numbers could not be independently verified,” DealBook reports. “But it has not been consistently profitable in 2013 because it has reinvested money in acquisitions, said people with knowledge of Twitter’s financial data who declined to be named.”

“While the company hopes to go public by the end of the year, the actual public offering could take place in early 2014, according to people who were briefed on the matter. Goldman Sachs is leading the underwriting for the offering, according to people briefed on the matter. It was not yet clear which other banks would participate, but JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley are likely to be involved, according to several people knowledgeable about the deal.”

In a seeming confirmation of Twitter’s dominance, news of the planned I.P.O. lit up the messaging service. The wisecracks were flying. “It’s very important that everyone keep tweeting great content during this important valuation period,” one Twitter account, @pourmecoffee, wrote. Some Twitter users speculated about what the ticker symbol might be. One early investor in Twitter, George Zachary, wrote: “Surreal: I’m using Twitter reading about I.P.O. filing remembering early days as an original investor.”

2 CONSULTANTS TO BANKING INDUSTRY UNDER SCRUTINY  |  Regulatory scrutiny of consultants to the banking industry â€" known as Wall Street’s shadow regulators â€" is intensifying. New York State has subpoenaed two consulting firms as part of a broader investigation into the industry’s perceived coziness with the financial industry, according to people briefed on the inquiry, Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg report in DealBook. The two firms that received the subpoenas in recent months â€" Promontory Financial Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers â€" are among the industry’s biggest names.

ON THE AGENDA  |  Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former Treasury secretary, is on CNBC at 7 a.m. Richard Kovacevich, the former chief of Wells Fargo, is on CNBC at 8 a.m. Data on retail sales in August is out at 8:30 a.m. The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for September is out at 9:55 a.m. John Lilly, a partner at Greylock Partners, is on Bloomberg TV at 6 p.m.

REGULATORS ASK MARKETS TO IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY  |  The Securities and Exchange Commission is asking the nation’s stock exchanges to introduce “kill switches” and other technological updates after a spate of computer problems have disrupted stock trading, Nathaniel Popper reports in DealBook. The head of the agency, Mary Jo White, asked for the changes at a meeting on Thursday with the top executives of the nation’s exchanges, which will be expected to propose specific technology upgrades and new rules in the next 60 days, according to people at the meeting.

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Long Battle for Dell Ends in Victory for Founder  |  Dell shareholders voted to approve the computer company’s $24.9 billion sale to its founder, ending a months-long slog that included fierce opposition from some investors.
DEALBOOK

Lessons From the Dell Deal  |  The tortuous Dell buyout is essentially over. Now, it’s time to step back, be introspective and draw some lessons, Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column.
DealBook »

Vodafone Says Shareholders Clear Kabel Deutschland Bid  |  Vodafone says it has received sufficient investor support to win approval of its 7.7 billion euros ($10.2 billion) takeover of the German cable operator Kabel Deutschland.
DealBook »

KPN and América Móvil Still in Talks  |  América Móvil, the Latin American telecommunications company, confirmed that it remained in talks with the Dutch cellphone company about a potential bid worth $9.6 billion.
DealBook »

A $4 Billion Hospital Deal in Germany  |  Rhoen-Klinikum of Germany is selling most of its hospitals to a rival, Fresenius, for 3.07 billion euros ($4.1 billion), Reuters reports.
REUTERS

Tradeweb Agrees to Buy BondDesk  |  Tradeweb Markets, a fixed-income trading platform, is buying the BondDesk Group, which provides retail wealth management and trading technology, Reuters reports. Terms were not disclosed.
REUTERS

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Accountants Acting as Bankers  |  A regulatory tribunal in Britain declared this week that accountants have an obligation to always work in the public interest, Floyd Norris writes in the High & Low Finance column in The New York Times.
NEW YORK TIMES

Ackermann to Resign From Board of SiemensAckermann to Resign From Board of Siemens  |  Josef Ackermann, the former chief executive of Deutsche Bank, plans to resign as a deputy chairman of Siemens, a decision that comes soon after he abruptly resigned as chairman of Zurich Insurance Group last month.
DealBook »

2 Big Firms Take a Chunk of Verizon’s Bond Deal  |  Pimco and BlackRock together bought about $13 billion of Verizon’s $49 billion bond offering, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Working-Hours Complaint at Goldman in Zurich  |  Goldman Sachs’s offices in Zurich were “visited on Wednesday by members of the local labor inspectorate following a complaint two weeks ago by the personnel union for Swiss banks connected to Goldman’s timekeeping practices,” The Financial Times reports.
FINANCIAL TIMES

Wells Fargo Said to Be Selling Mortgage Servicing Rights on $41 Billion in Loans  | 
BLOOMBERG NEWS

PRIVATE EQUITY »

California Coffee Chain Does a Deal With Private Equity  |  A group of investors led by Advent International teamed up with firms from Taiwan and South Korea to acquire a “significant equity position” in the owner of the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, a chain based in California.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

HEDGE FUNDS »

Foreign Funds to Be Allowed to Raise Money in China  |  The Financial Times reports: “Six global hedge funds are set to secure the first-ever approval to raise money from institutions within China for investing overseas, a key reform in the opening of the country’s closely guarded capital account.”
FINANCIAL TIMES

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

In Hilton I.P.O., a Losing Deal Turns AroundIn Hilton I.P.O., a Losing Deal Turns Around  |  Hilton Worldwide Holdings, the hotel company owned by the Blackstone Group, is seeking to raise at least $1.25 billion in what will be one of the most closely watched initial public offerings of the year.
DealBook »

Hilton Is Ready to Go Public, but Other Buyouts Are Still WaitingHilton Is Ready to Go Public, but Other Buyouts Are Still Waiting  |  Some of the biggest of companies of the buyout era, including First Data and Clear Channel Communications, remain in the hands of their private equity buyers, which are reshaping the companies with varying degrees of success.
DealBook »

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Federal Judge Approves American Airlines’ Plan to Exit Bankruptcy  |  Judge Sean H. Lane approved the carrier’s plan nearly two years after its bankruptcy filing, contingent on Justice Department approval of its merger with US Airways.
DealBook »

JPMorgan Said to Be Spending More on Oversight  |  JPMorgan Chase “plans to spend an additional $4 billion and commit 5,000 extra employees this year to clean up its risk and compliance problems, according to people close to the bank,” The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Reported Plunge in Jobless Claims â€" Or Not  |  After initially reporting on Thursday that initial jobless claims fell to their lowest level last week since the spring of 2006, the government then said the number was unreliable, skewed by upgrades on two state computer systems.
NEW YORK TIMES

Fed Prepares for Changes in Policy and Policy Makers  |  Federal Reserve officials face a challenge in “convincing markets that the Fed remains committed to its broader effort to stimulate the economy even as it begins to pull back from the most visible component of that campaign â€" and even though as many as nine of the 12 voting members of the Fed’s policy-making committee may be replaced in the next year,” The New York Times writes.
NEW YORK TIMES