- advertisements -
Well, the $5+ billion is only from the current fund. As reported in June 2009, Morgan Stanley is in the process of losing a lot more money - writing down 80% of the properties in Fund V U.S. and 60% in Fund VI International
This is not Morgan Stanley losing its own money, its the real estate fund that Morgan Stanley manages that lost the money, aka investors like US pension funds, and the usual overseas sovereign wealth funds, "suspects" like the xIC (where "x" could be anything from A to Z, passing by C and G"). As stated in the article, MS itself earned hundreds of millions of arranger fees and management fee approx 1.5% p.a (ie approx $135m a year). So for once, the US taxpayers are not on the hook for this folks, rejoice!!
On a separate note, investors should really consider legal action against the fund manager MS, in 2007 it was widely known the Japanese banks and property zombies were desperate to offload commercial real estate, which was already sick for nearly 30 years. Yet we still find supposedly "savvy" real estate fund managers plonking over $3b (before leverage), and getting less than 10% back.
And that brings us to today, where all the institutional investors (including without any doubt the "xIC", the Calpers and Yale/Harvard of the world) all lining up for .... guess what ..... US junk bonds and LBO refis are flying off the door faster than the European investment banks can package them, same old shit of covenant-lites and PIKs terms etc. And anyone thinks the S&P are at ridiculous levels, take this: all high yield indices are at historical record low spreads every passing day, witness the HG14, JNK, Bloomberg HY index etc, all at historical records.
Sure it is Ben, and Tim, but it's also greed and dumb money chasing yield.
When I first read the headline, I thought: $5 billion more burned somewhere, so what?
But the bigger point only was pointed out at WSJ: "Morgan Stanley has told investors in its $8.8 billion real-estate fund that it may lose nearly two-thirds of its money from bum property investments."
Thank God we have the SEC there to -ahem- regulate Morgan Stanley.
Yet another case of too big and failing.
Looks like the ex-MS Real Estate guys - largely responsible for losing billions - are starting a new platform to repeat their success
as a survivor of 3 housing bubbles in CA since the early 70s - having ridden out the first 2 and bailing out ahead of the final burst in 2005 - it is satisfying somehow to watch how this madness can play itself out on a grand scale. Buying into commercial real estate or any real estate (except maybe China) in 2007 is indeed stupidity writ large. Observing how these shysters wiggle trying to unwind their positions, even walking away, is gratifying indeed... If the government even looks like they might lend a hand to cushion the fall, there will be riots in the streets.
There will be no riots, you peasants will take it hard and dry.
Handle with care: I have not laid eyes on the word danegeld in thirty-eight years. Not since freshman year European History. I love the contributors here. Truly an erudite and literate bunch.
You stated: "While I understand that financial markets analysis differs from real estate investment analysis, they both construct models that ignore the possibility of major systemic risks." Bingo, you win a stuffed toy of your choice (i.e., what you see on the wall). In fact, most, if not all option models that are used by folks like Morgan Stanley, largely ignore macroeconomic risk (to the extent it is included, it is impicitely included in the usually assumed normal/Guassian distribution(s)). Thinking about, let alone modeling, things like recessionary business environments or waves of defaults is just not part of what is done (for at least two reasons: (1) modelers are flat out told not to, or can't mathematically do it, and/or (2) it would stop the deal or trade from getting done). One must remember, the longest time horizon for people who work at these places tends to be 365 days (i.e., on January 1st each year, ignoring a leap year) or an average horizon of half that (half a year), yet they invest in things that can have effective lives in the decades (e.g., the real estate deals/projects that you mention as having been their undoing). In addition, as you mentioned, there can be conflicts of interest. Anyways, while an impressive record, and hats off to Morgan Stanley, we shouldn't be too surprised, as the incentives and personnel alone are the likley drivers of such a record level of incompetence.
Love it, the bank is trying to negotiate with other banks to re-do the loan...like the rest of the country! Hope they throw their asses out and take the keys to Eurotower.
Can see why they need to pay the big bonuses to retain this talent.
If geniuses like this were lost to the financial industry and left for other sectors of the economy we really will all be fucked.
Perhaps we should look at the bonuses as danegeld that we all pay to keep them out of the real economy
I like the Danegeld idea. Put them on an island, say Hawaii and let them play golf.
Is this how a so called blue chip Wall Street investment house is supposed to behave? Of course!
It's not all bad news. The sellers of properties to the fund made out like bandits.
Maybe they see every other large firm getting a wad of cash shoved down their throats from the government, and were hoping if they could throw good money after bad and get the same. Its a little something called moral hazard.
this is one of my real estate partners!
they didn't use astroglide.
just put the loss off balance sheet . pretend the property is worth what they say it will be in thirty years
whats so bad about those apples .
It really sounds like the bankers at MS are working exceptionally hard to un-fuck the deal up. They deserve maximum bonuses, really.
I actually wrote two lengthy articles about Morgan Stanley's RE performance last year. The first detailing how it was not that difficult to see that they were investing at the top of a bubble, and the second showing that they had every economic incentive (fees) to invest at the top of a bubble since the client fees insulated them against loss - in nearly every potential scenario. Click the following links (in the second article, you can even download a model to see how much you are getting bilked by GP fees):
A look at the Morgan Stanley CRE ventures and lesson based on what happens when you buy into a bubble: Doesn't Morgan Stanley Read My Blog?”. Of course you can afford to buy into a bubble when your clients subsidize most of your CRE losses with a permanent, premium free call option: Wall Street is Back to Paying Big Bonuses. Are You Sharing in this New Found Prosperity?
Reggie, how about an analysis of Blackstone's ill advised acquisition of Hilton Hotels by the "genius" Jonathan Gray?
Thanks, Reggie. I do read your stuff and enjoy it. I think the question is, why did they do that? Why did they construct deals that front load huge fees? I think the answer is obvious as you point out. But that is human nature and we've got to assume that everyone in the investment world is "greedy." So let's go back one step and ask more basic questions.
Why did the promoters and investors of these deals fail to see the obvious? I think it is faulty economic analysis and faulty risk analysis endemic on the Street. As you and most readers probably know, I would tie this all back to Keynesian-econometric mechanistic views of the world as to economic analysis and herd behavior as to risk analysis. That's why everyone missed the obvious and continue to do so.
BTW, my very first article in 2007 was about subprime investment structures. Also, my business has been real estate investments, and I thought your analysis was excellent.
Thanks for the comment.
Reggie, I admire your work and motivation to get at the truth...assuming the numbers are fairly presented, as opposed to Erin Callan's numbers - OH!
Your voice of reason and responsibility is refreshing in this era of nonfeasance and shirking responsibility.
Reggie you do great work and it's always wonderfully detailed.
That said...it appears that not even the largest RE loss in history is enough to cause so much as a down tick in the MS stock...or any other stock for that matter.
Obviously...we've either run out of Red Pills...or everybody has opted for the Blue ones.
How this news doesn't move MS stock down is just...astounding.
If you smooth the valuations over 30 years, they come out ahead!
Reggie, good stuff, too bad dumb public pension funds aren't listening!
Reggie... the man with the facts... I admire your work.
Market should pop on this news...particularly REIT's and Banks...naturally.
No doubt CNBC will spin this real pretty.
on the other hand...as an outside gamble...the $25 puts might be interesting...but in this market, that would be a total daredevil move...
No risk, no reward...Besides, if you buy puts nobody can recall your shares!
check out how the prison population has soared since 1971 (graph available at wikipedia). Apparently the move away from gold standard and easy money does not equal good values and quality of life !!
Ditto global warming.
the average working person's real (inflation adjusted) hourly wage peaked in 1973.
The politicos started the "get tough on crime" campaign in the early 70s. It just meant bloated judicial and enforcement budgets, lengthier sentences and more people going to jail. No proof that move from gold standard caused this increase in prison population. sorry bud.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.