Posts filed under “Corporate Management”
Real Estate Wednesday continues with this short list, pulled from New Century’s bankrupcy filing (Why do I have to go across the pond to find stuff like this?)
"Goldman Sachs has emerged as the single biggest creditor of New Century, the American sub-prime mortgage lender, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last night, after writing $60 billion (£30.4 billion) of American home loans.
Barclays, the British bank, is at No 15 in the list of top 50 creditors. HSBC, which is already directly exposed to turmoil in the sub-prime market through its US sub-prime lending subsidiary, is at No 22."
Here’s the top lenders to New Century, which prior to their Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, had borrowed over $60 billion to underwrite sub-prime home loans.
Top 15 Creditors (by Size) to New Century
1 Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
2 Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC
3 Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC
4 Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital
5 DB Structured Products
6 Deutsche Bank
7 Bank of America
8 UBS Real Estate Securities
9 Lehman Brothers Bank FSB
11 Citigroup Global Markets Realty
12 Residential Funding Corporation
13 SG Mortgage Finance
14 IXIS Real Estate Capital
15 Barclays Bank
Crazy stuff . . .
New Century collapse sends shockwaves across the biggest lenders on Wall Street
The Times, April 4, 2007
Blame the professors: Just as the option backdating scandal started with academic researchers noting mathematical anomalies, so too might the next brewing scandal: the I/B/E/S Analyst ratings back dating scandal.
According to a Barron’s article by Bill Alpert (buried on page 39), several professors have discovered what they describe as 54,729 non-random, ex-post changes out of 280,463 observations — a little over 19.5% of analyst recs (abstract below):
"The professors found
almost 55,000 changes that had been made in the I/B/E/S database of
stock-analyst recommendations maintained by Thomson, the Stamford,
Conn., firm that is a leading vendor of financial data. The alterations
made Wall Street’s record of recommendations look more conservative –
hiding Strong Buy recommendations and adding Sell recommendations from
1993 to 2002. That is a period for which Wall Street has drawn heat and
government sanctions for touting Internet bubble stocks.
As a result of the changes, the stock picks shown in
the database would have created annual gains that were 15% to 42%
better than the originally recorded recommendations, using a trading
strategy based on analysts’ recommendations."
The firms were the most significant participants in the data backdating were also the firms who had the closest relationship between banking and research and were the hardest hit by the Spitzer enforced settlement.
From page four of the academic working paper notes exactly how significant this was:
"Why do the historical data now look different than they once did? The contents of the database changed at some point between September 2002 and May 2004, a period that not only coincided with close scrutiny of Wall Street research by regulators, Congress, and the courts, but also saw a substantial downsizing of research departments at most major brokerage firms in the U.S.
The paper outlines four types of data changes: 1) non-random removal of analyst names from historic recommendations (anonymizations); 2) the addition of new records not previously part of the database; 3) the removal of records that had been in the data; and 4) alterations to historical recommendation levels.
The net result of this was to make many specific trading strategies appear better in retrospect than they actually were. Buying top rated stocks and shorting lowest rated stocks, based on the changed data, now perform 15.9% to 42.4% better on the 2004 revised data than on the 2002 tape, the professors state.