MBIA $4 Billion From Its Investment Portfolio; Ambac's Investment Portfolio

Ambac shares are really getting killed today (down 20% on no news). I wonder if it has to index changes (Ambac was removed from Russell 1000 on Friday and inserted into the Russell 2000 today.) Further decline will result in a risk of being de-listed from NYSE (although that risk is not near)...

MBIA disclosed that it liquidated a portion of its investment portfolio, to the tune of $4 billion to satisfy collateral and early redemption requirements due to it being downgraded. It also denied a report from last week's Wall Street Journal saying that it had sold muni bonds. The bad news is that it resulted in $300 million in losses. The losses were supposedly already taken before but the sales crystallized the unrealized loss to a real loss.


For those not familiar, the investment business is seperate from the insurance business. The monolines agree to manage the funds collected by municipalities and others in exchange for payments. If the monolines get downgraded, they are requireed to post collateral and/or refund the funds.

William Ackman's main argument for the collapse of FSA has to do with its investment contracts. MBIA took a $300m loss on them and Ackman claims that FSA's loss on its investment portfolio is going to bankrupt the monoline. As for Ambac, here is the required actions at various rating levels:



If Ambac gets cut to A, it has to collateralize most of its portfolio and return some of it. Here is the underlying ratings of the portfolio:



The portolio looks fine but the problem is that, given the credit crisis and irrational pricing, liquidating en masse may result in losses. If the portfolio is held to maturity, losses will likely be small.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 30, 2008 at 6:30 PM

    "Ambac shares are really getting killed today (down 20% on no news)."

    At this point it would be just cruel to continue to mock ABK/MBI stockholders. So I won't.

    I do have a question: much has been made by this blog its various participants that stock price does not reflect the _intrinsic value_ of the company.

    So if the stock goes down 20% on no news TO YOU...Is it possible that _some_ participants got some meaningful news ahead of you that, just perhaps, the company's _intrinsic value_ has changed?

    Of course, since this question is purely rhertorical (and admittedly quite unanswerable), it would say contrarian investing is somewhat faith-based, at least initially. It will become fact-based when news eventually filter out to the small investors who fancy themselves as "contrarians."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sivaram VJune 30, 2008 at 8:10 PM

    SYNHCRO: "So if the stock goes down 20% on no news TO YOU...Is it possible that _some_ participants got some meaningful news ahead of you that, just perhaps, the company's _intrinsic value_ has changed?"


    That's always possible...

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJuly 1, 2008 at 12:56 AM

    No need to respond, just a link worth considering.

    http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/06/30/the_end_of_naiv.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJuly 1, 2008 at 12:57 AM

    http://paul.kedrosky.com/
    archives/2008/06/30
    /the_end_of_naiv.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>