Henry Paulson - On the Brink - Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System

“My God,” I said. “I just told the president we have a deal.”

I immediately alerted Tim that I had just learned of a problem.

He was surprised and angry. “Hank, you’ve made a commitment. You need to find some way to meet it.”

I called Hoyt back. “Come up with something,” I told him.

Bob is a great lawyer and a can-do guy. Before coming to me he had spent hours trying out a couple of imaginative, outside-the-box theories and had run them by the Department of Justice. The lawyers concluded that their ideas wouldn’t survive the third question at a congressional oversight hearing.

Finally, when Tim understood that we didn’t have the power to do any more, we figured out a compromise. The Fed’s $30 billion loan was based on a provision in the law that gave it the authority, under what is called “exigent circumstances,” to make a loan—even to an investment bank like Bear Stearns—provided it was “secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank.” Over the course of the afternoon, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, had assured Tim and me that his firm had done enough work on the mortgages to provide the Fed with a letter attesting that its loan was adequately secured, meaning the risk of loss was minimal. So what the Fed really needed from the executive branch was political—not legal—protection.

Since Treasury couldn’t formally indemnify the Fed, we agreed that I would write a letter to Tim commending and supporting the Fed’s actions. I would also acknowledge that if the Fed did take a loss, it would mean that the Fed would have fewer profits to give to the Treasury. In that sense the burden of the loss would be on the taxpayer, not the Fed.

I called this our “all money is green” letter. It was an indirect way of getting the Fed the cover it needed for taking an action that should—and would—have been taken by Treasury if we had had the fiscal authority to do so. Hoyt started drafting the letter immediately. As it turned out, we were still hashing out the details a week later.

We had heard back from Jamie just before 4:00 p.m. that the JPMorgan board had approved the deal. Now we had to wait to hear from Bear, and I admit I was nervous. Even as our earlier call with Jamie had wound down, I had begun to worry about the Bear Stearns board. What if they decided to be difficult? If they threatened to choose bankruptcy over JPMorgan’s deal, as irrational as this might appear, they would have leverage over us. Though I thought this unlikely, I became anxious as the minutes ticked by without an answer from Bear. Finally, at 6:00 p.m., the Bear board approved the deal.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story of the Bear Stearns– JPMorgan deal online Sunday evening. JPMorgan would buy Bear for $2 per share, or a total of $236 million (it had been valued at its peak, in January 2007, at about $20 billion). If a shareholder vote failed to approve the transaction, the deal would have to be put to a revote by the shareholders within 28 days—a process that could go on for up to six months. This revote measure was intended to give the market certainty that the deal would ultimately close even if the Bear shareholders balked at the $2 a share. As part of the deal, the Federal Reserve Board would provide a $30 billion loan to a stand-alone entity named Maiden Lane LLC that would buy Bear’s mortgage assets and manage them.

The Fed board also approved a Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), which opened the discount window to investment banks for the first time since the Great Depression. We had been discussing this over the weekend, and it was a critical move. We hoped that the market would be comforted by the perception that the investment banks had come under the Fed umbrella.

That night we convened another call with financial industry CEOs. Jamie Dimon led off the call by saying, “All of your trading positions with Bear Stearns are now with JPMorgan Chase.”

This was a crucial element to the deal. JPMorgan would guarantee Bear’s trading book—meaning it would stand behind any of its transactions—until the deal closed. This was exactly the assurance the markets needed to keep doing business with Bear.

Tim spoke, and then I addressed the group. I noted that the Fed had taken strong actions to stabilize the system and asked for their help and leadership. “You need to work together and support each other,” I remember saying. “We expect you to act responsibly and avoid behavior that will undermine market confidence.”

“What happens if the shareholders don’t vote for it [the deal], but we’re still acting responsibly, like you ask?” Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit asked. “Is the government going to indemnify us?”

It was exactly the right question, but neither Jamie Dimon nor, for that matter, any of the rest of us were in a mood to hear it.

“What happens to Citigroup if this institution goes down?” Jamie snapped. “I’ve stepped up to do this. Why are you asking these questions?”

With JPMorgan on board, Bear’s liquidity—and solvency—were no longer at issue. Asia sold off Sunday night, but the London and New York markets held steady on Monday.

Nonetheless, despite Joe Ackermann’s blunt warning to me on Saturday, I had underestimated the recent loss of confidence in U.S. investment banks, particularly in Europe. I had asked David McCormick, the undersecretary for international affairs, to brief the staffs of the finance ministries in Europe on the Bear rescue and the strong U.S. response. But on Monday night, David asked me to make the calls because, he said, the Europeans were so scared. On Tuesday I spoke with several of my European counterparts—Alistair Darling from the U.K., Christine Lagarde from France, Peer Steinbrück from Germany—to explain our actions and to ask for their support.

It was quite an eye-opener. I frankly had been disappointed at the negative attitudes of some of the European banks, and I had hoped my counterparts would encourage their banks to be more constructive. I could now see there was no way they would do that. They were understandably shocked by Bear.

And of course, the deal was hugely controversial in the U.S. Although plenty of commentators thought it was a brilliant, bold stroke that saved the system, there were just as many who thought it outrageous, a clear case of moral hazard come home to roost. They thought we should have let Bear fail. Among the prominent members of this camp was Senator Richard Shelby, who said the action set a “bad precedent.”

To be fair, I could see my critics’ arguments. In principle, I was no more inclined than they were to put taxpayer money at risk to rescue a bank that had gotten itself in a jam. But my market experience had led me to conclude—and rightly so, I continue to believe—that the risks to the system were too great. I am convinced we did the best we could with what we had. It’s fair to say we underestimated the speed with which the Bear Stearns crisis arrived, but we realized pretty quickly the limitations on our statutory powers and authorities to deal with the trouble that came our way. In the next week we redoubled our efforts to finish our work on the new regulatory blueprint that we were planning to unveil at the end of the month.

But the debate about the rescue was beside the point. For all the headlines and noise, we didn’t actually have a finished deal. We had announced a transaction that the market initially wouldn’t accept because it wanted certainty and wanted it quickly.

However, in the end, it still came down to price. Many Bear Stearns shareholders—and employees owned about one-third of the company—were incensed at what they saw as a lowball offer. After all, shares had traded for almost $173 in January 2007, and shareholders had lost billions of dollars. I felt sympathy for them, and I could understand their anger. On the other hand, the only reason the company had any value at all was because the government had stepped in and saved it.