Here's a gentle reminder for CFOs and risk officers at major international banks: If you hedge your position but you don't hedge it 100%, then you haven't fully hedged your position.
Last month, it was UBS (UBS), which made a decision based on "statistical analyses of historical price movements" that if it hedged its super-senior bonds against a price fall of somewhere between 2% and 4%, then those bonds were fully hedged. Now, it's Lehman Brothers (LEH):
Erin Callan, Lehman chief financial officer, has said publicly that Lehman's previously successful hedges, which included bets against indexes such as the CMBX, which tracks the performance of commercial mortgage backed securities, are no longer performing well...
Any second-quarter loss would be driven by both a reduction in the value of those holdings as well as the less effective hedging.
Many hedges are limited: They give you protection against some of the possible downside, but not all of it. That's clearly what's happening here - as the holdings continue to decline in value, the hedges have essentially been used up.
The worrying thing is that Lehman has some seriously enormous exposures here:
At the end of the first quarter, Lehman said it had exposure of $36.1bn to commercial mortgages and related securities and $31.8bn in exposure to residential mortgages and securities.
Add those two together and you get $67.9 billion, which is three times Lehman's market capitalization and (since the bank is trading on a price-to-book ratio of 1) three times its book value, too.
Maybe it's time to revisit Jesse Eisinger's column about Lehman's balance sheet.
Related Articles
|
Top Rated Comment Streams:
-
1.Hedged In661
- 2.
-
3.Smarty_Pants399
-
4.cos1000290
-
5.axelrod608290




This article has 6 comments:
-
CreditTrader
-
6 Comments
May 22 11:13 AM-
icandoitdon
-
406 Comments
May 22 02:17 PMto use an example, if the only perfect hedge in the stock market is to have offsetting short and long positions in the same security. what's the point?
the real issue is managing risk. i would submit that investment banks do it poorly because they use far too much leverage. the only reason the full effects of it have not been recognized is that the federal reserve has become their sugar daddy.
-
master_trader
-
2 Comments
May 22 04:45 PM-
notsosmart
-
1249 Comments
May 23 09:01 AM-
fingham
-
10 Comments
May 23 01:52 PM-
vaduz
-
109 Comments
My Website
May 23 03:06 PM