May 9, 2024

Archives for June 2012

DealBook: Felda Shares Soar 20% on the Heels of $3.1 Billion I.P.O.

Farmers harvesting oil palm fruit. Felda Global Ventures of Malaysia is a major producer of palm oil.Samsul Said/ReutersFarmers harvesting oil palm fruit. Felda Global Ventures of Malaysia is a major producer of palm oil.

HONG KONG — Shares in Felda Global Ventures rose as much as 20 percent in their trading debut in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Thursday following the palm oil producer’s successful $3.1 billion initial public offering earlier this month.

Shares in Felda, which was privatized by the Malaysian government in the world’s second biggest I.P.O. of the year behind that of Facebook, rose as high as 5.46 Malaysian ringgit, or $1.71, apiece in morning trading.

The opening day pop briefly increased Felda’s market value by an additional $1 billion, before the shares gave up some of their gains to settle at 5.30 ringgit apiece at the close of trading on Thursday, 16 percent above the I.P.O. offering price of 4.55 ringgit.

Felda’s is a rare success story in Asian markets, which continue to struggle with weak trading volumes and lackluster demand for new offerings because of investor worries about Europe’s debt crisis and a lingering economic slowdown in China.

Recent weeks have seen a series of large I.P.O.’s in Asia and elsewhere withdrawn or postponed because of slumping markets. Those included a planned $3 billion offering by the Formula One racing outfit in Singapore and a $1 billion Hong Kong share sale by Britain’s Graff Diamonds.

Still, several smaller deals have managed to get through. Earlier this week, China Nonferrous Mining successfully priced its $247 million Hong Kong share sale, while in Indonesia, the media company PT MNC Sky Vision priced its $226 million deal, according to the term sheets for both offerings.

Felda, which draws about 80 percent of its revenue from sales of crude palm oil within Malaysia, sold 1.92 billion shares to institutional investors at the offer price and 273 million shares to retail investors at a 2 percent discount, according to its prospectus.

Of the total I.P.O. proceeds of 9.93 billion ringgit, about 55 percent went to the government, which sold a 33 percent stake, and about 45 percent went to the company, mainly for the purchase of new plantations. Felda already has about 880,000 acres of palm plantations in Malaysia, according to its Web site.

CIMB, Maybank and Morgan Stanley were the joint bookrunners for the I.P.O., while the three banks, in addition to Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase, underwrote the retail offering.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/felda-shares-pop-20-after-3-1-billion-i-p-o/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: News Corporation Announces Split

11:39 a.m. | Updated Rupert Murdoch confirmed Thursday morning that News Corporation, his $54 billion media conglomerate, will proceed with a plan to divide the company in two — separating newspapers like The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and The Times of London from the fast-growing entertainment unit.

In a news release, the company said the split would be completed within the next 12 months, with Mr. Murdoch serving as chairman of both companies and chief executive of the entertainment business. Chase Carey would remain chief operating officer of the entertainment group, which would include cable channels like FX and Fox News, the 20th Century Fox studio and Fox Broadcasting. In the coming months, the board of directors would decide the leader of the publishing business.

“News Corporation’s 60-year heritage of developing world-class brands has resulted in a large and unparalleled portfolio of diversified assets,” Mr. Murdoch said in a statement. “We recognize that over the years, News Corporation’s broad collection of assets have become increasingly complex.”

He added: “We determined that creating this new structure would simplify operations and greater align strategic priorities.”

News Corporation shareholders would receive one share of common stock in the new company for each same-class share they hold in the current company, the news release said. Both companies would maintain their controversial dual-class share stock structure, which enables the Murdoch family to control nearly 40 percent of the voting power.

The publishing company’s stock would be worth between 50 cents and $1.40 a share, according to Richard Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG Research.

In a memo to staff, Mr. Murdoch cited the company’s “spirit of innovation” in the decision, which he viewed as an opportunity to free his beloved newspapers from their ugly stepchild status within the giant corporation.

“Our publishing businesses are greatly undervalued by the skeptics,” he wrote. “Through this transformation we will unleash their real potential, and be able to better articulate the true value they hold for shareholders.”

In a phone interview Thursday morning, Mr. Murdoch said newsroom [Read more…]

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/news-corporation-makes-it-official-two-companies/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Barclays Chief Faces Political Firestorm

Robert E. Diamond Jr., chief of Barclays, said the bank worked to fix problems and cooperated with the authorities.Jerome Favre/Bloomberg NewsRobert E. Diamond Jr., chief of Barclays, said the bank had worked to fix problems and cooperated with the authorities.

The Barclays chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., faced a political backlash on Thursday, a day after the British bank agreed to pay more than $450 million to settle accusations that it had attempted to manipulate key interest rates.

Several current and former politicians took aim at Barclays over the matter on Thursday, with some calling for him to resign. The cacophony of criticism comes as Mr. Diamond deals with shareholder opposition about his pay.

“I think the whole management team have got some serious questions to answer,” said Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking at an event in Northern England. “Who was responsible? Who was going to take responsibility? How are they being held accountable?”

The bank’s shares fell 10.6 percent in afternoon trading in London on Thursday.

Barclays is under scrutiny for attempting to influence key benchmarks, including the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, to bolster its own bottom line. Such rates are used to determine the cost for a range of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

David Meister, the commission's enforcement director.Dave Cross PhotographyDavid Meister, the commission’s enforcement director.

On Wednesday, Barclays struck a deal with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Justice Department and the Financial Services Authority in London, in the first settlement in a sprawling investigation into whether big banks improperly set key interest rates. Mr. Diamond, in a statement on Wednesday, underscored the changes at Barclays, saying “today’s resolutions relate to past actions which fell well short of the standards to which Barclays aspires in the conduct of its business.”

The settlement is also likely to spur reform. As part of the settlement, Barclays agreed to adopt new measures and controls.

On Thursday, the British Bankers’ Association, the trade body that oversees Libor, said it had asked the authorities to review how the interbank rate was set. Until now, the organization had avoided government involvement by conducting its own review into the process, which mainly relies on the world’s largest banks to provide the figures that underpin Libor.

Politicians are pushing for accountability at Barclays. Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the treasury committee for Britain’s House of Commons, said it would summon Mr. Diamond as well as the heads of the Financial Services Authority, the British regulator, to answer questions on the issue sometime in the next four weeks. George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, similarly wanted answers.

Mr. Diamond, said Mr. Osborne, “has some very serious questions to answer. What did he know, and when did he know it? And who of the Barclays executives knew what was going on?”

“We all want to hear his answers,” Mr. Osborne told Parliament on Thursday. “The story of irresponsibility is not over yet. What happened at Barclays and at other banks is completely unacceptable. It is systemic of the financial industry that put greed above other interests.”

The fallout from the regulatory mess follows an earlier firestorm over executive compensation. Amid mounting criticism from shareholders about excessive pay, Mr. Diamond and other Barclays executives said in April that they would give up some of their annual bonuses if certain profit goals were not met.

Mr. Diamond will now forgo his entire annual payout, announcing on Wednesday that he and others would give up their bonuses in light of the legal issues.

The problems may continue to mount for Barclays. Mr. Osborne, in his speech, said the authorities would continue to look into the matter and were pursuing every avenue open to them. The Labour leader Ed Miliband echoed the need for justice.

“This cannot be about a slap on the wrist, a fine and the forgoing of bonuses. To believe that is the end of the matter would be totally wrong,” Mr. Miliband said in a speech. “When ordinary people break the law, they face charges, prosecution and punishment. We need to know who knew what when, and criminal prosecutions should follow against those who broke the law.”

Some even argued that Mr. Diamond should step down — or that the board should take action.

“If Bob Diamond had a scintilla of shame he would resign,” a former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, said in an interview with the BBC. “If Barclays’ board had an inch of backbone between them they would sack him.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/barclays-chief-faces-political-firestorm/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: JPMorgan Trading Loss May Reach $9 Billion

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, discussed the trading losses last week before the House Financial Services Committee.Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York TimesJamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, discussed the trading losses last week before the House Financial Services Committee.

Losses on JPMorgan Chase’s bungled trade could total as much as $9 billion, far exceeding earlier public estimates, according to people who have been briefed on the situation.

When Jamie Dimon, the bank’s chief executive, announced in May that the bank had lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives, he estimated that losses could double within the next few quarters. But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks, as the bank has been unwinding its positions, according to interviews with current and former traders and executives at the bank who asked not to be named because of investigations into the bank.

The bank’s exit from its money-losing trade is happening faster than many expected. JPMorgan previously said it hoped to clear its position by early next year; now it is already out of more than half of the trade and may be completely free this year.

As JPMorgan has moved rapidly to unwind the position — its most volatile assets in particular — internal models at the bank have recently projected losses of as much as $9 billion. In April, the bank generated an internal report that showed that the losses, assuming worst-case conditions, could reach $8 billion to $9 billion, according to a person who reviewed the report.

With much of the most volatile slice of the position sold, however, regulators are unsure how deep the reported losses will eventually be. Some expect that the red ink will not exceed $6 billion to $7 billion.

Nonetheless, the sharply higher loss totals will feed a debate over how strictly large financial institutions should be regulated and whether some of the behemoth banks are capitalizing on their status as too big to fail to make risky trades.

JPMorgan plans to disclose part of the total losses on the soured bet on July 13, when it reports second-quarter earnings. Despite the loss, the bank has said it will be solidly profitable for the quarter — no small achievement given that nervous markets and weak economies have sapped Wall Street’s main businesses. To put the size of the loss in perspective, JPMorgan logged a first-quarter profit of $5.4 billion.

More than profits are at stake. The growing fallout from the bank’s bad bet threatens to undercut the credibility of Mr. Dimon, who has been fighting major regulatory changes that could curtail the kind of risk-taking that led to the trading losses. The bank chief was considered a deft manager of risk after steering JPMorgan through the financial crisis in far better shape than its rivals.

“Essentially, JPMorgan has been operating a hedge fund with federal insured deposits within a bank,” said Mark Williams, a professor of finance at Boston University, who also served as a Federal Reserve bank examiner.

A spokesman for the bank declined to comment.

In its most basic form, the losing trade, made by the bank’s chief investment office in London, was an intricate position that included a bullish bet on an index of investment-grade corporate debt. That was later combined with a bearish wager on high-yield securities.

The chief investment office — which invests excess deposits for the bank and was created to hedge interest rate risk — brought in more than $4 billion in profits in the last three years, accounting for roughly 10 percent of the bank’s profit during that period.

In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week, Mr. Dimon said that the London unit had “embarked on a complex strategy” that exposed the bank to greater risks even though it had been intended to minimize them.

JPMorgan executives are briefed each morning on the size of the trading loss. The tally could shrink if the market moves in JPMorgan’s favor, the people briefed on the situation cautioned.

But hedge funds and other investors have seized on the bank’s distress, creating a rapid deterioration in the underlying positions held by the bank. Although Mr. Dimon has tried to conceal the intricacies of the bank’s soured bet, credit traders say the losses have still mounted.

While some hedge funds have compounded the bank’s woes, others have been finding it profitable to help JPMorgan get clear of the losing credit positions.

One such fund, Blue Mountain Capital Management, has been accumulating trades over the last couple of weeks that might help reduce the risk of the bets made by JPMorgan in a credit index, according to interviews with more than a dozen credit traders. The hedge fund is then selling those positions back to the bank. A Blue Mountain spokesman declined to comment.

As traders in JPMorgan’s London desk work to get out of the huge bet, which started generating erratic losses in late March, the traders based in New York are largely sitting idle, according to current traders in the unit.

“We are in a holding pattern,” said one current New York trader who asked not to be named.

Long before the losses started mounting, senior executives at the chief investment office in New York worried about the trades of Bruno Iksil, according to the current traders.

Now known as the London Whale for his outsize wagers in the credit markets, Mr. Iksil accumulated a number of trades in 2010 that were illiquid, which means it would take the bank more time to get out of them.

In 2010, a senior executive at the chief investment office compiled a detailed report that estimated how much money the bank stood to lose if it had to get out of all Mr. Iksil’s trades within 30 days. The senior executive recommended that JPMorgan consider putting aside reserves to deal with any losses that might stem from Mr. Iksil’s trades. It is not known how much was recommended as a reserve or whether Mr. Dimon saw the report, but the warning went unheeded.

The losses are the most embarrassing fumble for Mr. Dimon since he became chief executive in 2005.

In appearances before Congress, Mr. Dimon has taken pains to assure investors and lawmakers that the overall health of JPMorgan remained strong and that it had more than sufficient amounts of capital to weather any economic dislocation.

Even as he apologized for the trade, calling it “stupid,” Mr. Dimon emphasized to lawmakers that the loss was an “isolated incident.”

The Federal Reserve is currently poring over the bank’s trades to examine the scope of the growing losses and the original bet.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/jpmorgan-trading-loss-may-reach-9-billion/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Glencore’s $24 Billion Deal for Xstrata Under Threat

Despite a lack of market confidence, some European deals have been announced. In February, the commodities trader Glencore proposed $41 billion takeover of the mining company Xstrata.Jack Atley/Bloomberg NewsAn Xstrata mine in Australia. In February, Glencore offered to buy the rest of the mining company.

LONDON – Glencore International’s $24 billion deal with Xstrata is under threat after Qatar Holding asked Glencore to increase its bid amid mounting opposition to executive pay arrangements.

Qatar Holding, which is one of Xstrata’s largest shareholders, said late on Tuesday that it had informed Glencore it was “seeking improved merger terms.” Glencore, the commodities trading giant based in Switzerland that already owns 34 percent of Xstrata, agreed in February to buy the rest of the company. Qatar wants Glencore to increase its offer by 16 percent.

“Qatar believes that an exchange ratio of 3.25 new Glencore shares for every one existing Xstrata share would provide a more appropriate distribution of benefits of the merger whilst properly recognizing the intrinsic stand-alone value of Xstrata,” Qatar Holding, which holds about 10 percent of Xstrata, said in a statement. Glencore had offered 2.8 of its own shares for each Xstrata share when it announced the deal earlier this year.

Qatar Holding is the latest shareholder to oppose the deal, which would create one of the world’s largest mining companies. Two Xstrata investors, Standard Life and Schroders, previously voiced criticism about Glencore’s offer price in February. Collectively, the three shareholders own about 13.5 percent of Xstrata.

Xstrata investors with only a combined 16.5 percent stake could block the merger because Glencore is not allowed to vote on the deal with its 34 percent stake in Xstrata. The retention packages, which amount to more than $260 million for 73 executives, could be blocked by just over a third of votes.

“I still think a deal will get done. The question is at what price,” said Nik Stanojevic, an analyst at Brewin Dolphin in London. “I don’t think Glencore will pay 3.25, but the chances of a bump to 3.0 have increased. But those of the deal failing have also increased.”

Glencore declined to comment on Qatar’s demand but said it was currently considering amending the retention packages for Xstrata executives that came under criticism. Some investors balked at the size of the incentives, which are not linked to any performance targets, especially that for Xstrata’s chief executive, Mick Davis.

Glencore said it received a plan from Xstrata’s board “in relation to certain amendments to the management incentive arrangements” and was “considering that proposal.”

Glencore’s shares fell 3.9 percent in London on Wednesday, and Xstrata shares were down 1.4 percent.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/glencores-deal-for-xstrata-under-threat/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Barclays to Pay Over $450 Million in Regulatory Deal

A branch of Barclays in London.Andy Rain/European Pressphoto AgencyA branch of Barclays in London.

Barclays has agreed to pay more than $450 million to resolve accusations that it attempted to manipulate key interest rates, the first settlement in a sprawling global investigation involving many of the world’s biggest banks.

The British bank struck a deal with regulators in Washington and London, as well as the Justice Department. The settlement is seen as the first in a series of potential cases against other major financial firms.

“When a bank acts in its own self-interest by attempting to manipulate these rates for profit, or by submitting false reports that result from senior management orders to lower submissions to guard the bank’s reputation, the integrity of benchmark interest rates is undermined,” said David Meister, the enforcement director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the American regulator involved in the Barclays case.

The broad investigation centers on the way Barclays and other big banks set key benchmarks for borrowing, lending rates that affect corporations and consumers.

Regulators have questioned whether the banks attempted to improperly set certain rates — including the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and the Euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor — at a level that was favorable to their own institutions. Authorities are also looking at HSBC, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and other firms.

In the Barclays case, regulators say they uncovered “pervasive” wrongdoing that spanned a four-year period and touched top rungs of the firm, including members of senior management and traders stationed in London, New York and Tokyo. A 45-page complaint laid bare the scheme, describing how Barclays made false reports with the aim of manipulating rates to increase the bank’s profits.

The complaint also outlines how Barclays, at the height of the financial crisis, submitted artificially low figures to depress the rate and deflect scrutiny about its health. The bank at the time faced concerns that it was reporting high borrowing rates pointing to a weak financial position.

The practice prompted unease among some employees, who worried the bank was “being dishonest by definition.”

The Barclays settlement represents a record for the two regulators. The futures commission levied a $200 million penalty, the largest in its history, while the Financial Services Authority in London imposed a $92.8 million fine. As part of the settlement deal, the Justice Department agreed to not prosecute Barclays, although federal prosecutors are continuing a criminal investigation into other banks and bank employees.

“The events which gave rise to today’s resolutions relate to past actions which fell well short of the standards to which Barclays aspires in the conduct of its business,” the Barclays chief executive, Bob Diamond, said in a statement. “When we identified those issues, we took prompt action to fix them and cooperated extensively and proactively with the authorities.” Mr. Diamond added that he and three other top executives had voluntarily agreed to give up their bonuses this year.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, global regulators have been looking into whether many of the world’s largest banks attempted to manipulate Libor, a measure of how much banks charge each other for loans. In essence, the benchmark is an average of the interest rates at which that the big banks say they can borrow from the capital markets.

An important barometer of the health of the financial system, the rate not only affects big banks and corporations but also homeowners. Libor and similar rates are used to determine the price for more than $350 trillion worth of financial products, including complex derivatives, student loans, credit cards and mortgages.

At least nine agencies, including the Justice Department, the Financial Services Authority of Britain and Financial Supervisory Agency of Japan, have centered their investigations on Libor. Authorities are also looking into the activity surrounding similar benchmarks known as Tibor, the Tokyo interbank offered rate, and Euribor.

“Barclays’ misconduct was serious, widespread and extended over a number of years,” Tracey McDermott, acting director of enforcement and financial crime at the Financial Services Authority, said in a statement. “Barclays’ behavior threatened the integrity of the rates with the risk of serious harm to other market participants.”

Libor and the other interbank rates provide benchmarks for global short-term borrowing, and are published daily based on surveys from banks about the rates at which they could borrow money in the financial markets. Currently, more than a dozen financial firms, including JPMorgan, Bank of America and HSBC, provide information to set the daily American dollar Libor rate.

Regulators are investigating whether banks shared information between their treasury departments, which help to set Libor, and their trading units, which buy and sell financial products on a daily basis. Financial institutions are expected to maintain so-called Chinese walls between the two divisions to avoid confidential information being used to turn a profit as part of banks’ daily trading operations.

Analysts say the Libor system, which was created in 1986 and is overseen by Thomson Reuters on behalf of the British Bankers’ Association, does not provide sufficient transparency about how banks set their daily interest rates for borrowing in the financial markets.

When many banks were unable to borrow in the financial markets during the financial crisis, authorities raised concerns about the figures that firms were using to set Libor.

As bank funding costs rose to historic highs after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, regulators started to worry that financial firms might have submitted low interest rate figures that underpin Libor to appear in stronger financial positions than they actually were. With limited oversight over how banks set the rates, analysts say a bank could have provided lower figures in an effort to artificially keep its actual borrowing costs down.

Since then, regulators in the United States have issued subpoenas to several banks, including Bank of America, UBS and Citigroup, about how Libor was set. The Competition Bureau of Canada is investigating the activities of JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank and several other major banks about their activities around Libor. Japanese, Swiss and British authorities are also conducting their own inquiries into how the interbank rates have been set over the last five years.

In 2011, Charles Schwab, the brokerage firm and investment manager, sued 11 major banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan and Citigroup, claiming they conspired to manipulate Libor.

Last August, Barclays disclosed that American and European authorities were investigating the activities of the British bank and other financial institutions concerning how Libor was set. The inquiries had been focused on accusations that Barclays and other firms suppressed interbank rates from 2006 to 2009, according to a statement from the British bank. Barclays had said it was cooperating with the investigation.

The British Bankers’ Association, Libor’s sponsor, defends its rate-setting process, though the trade body established a committee earlier this year to revise how the rate was set. The changes are expected to focus on establishing guidelines, including which bank employees can be told about the daily interbank rates and which specific financial instruments can be used to set Libor.

Barclays statement of facts from the Justice Department

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/barclays-said-to-settle-regulatory-claims-over-benchmark-manipulation/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: News Corp. Shares Leap on Potential Split

Shares in News Corporation rose more than 6 percent in morning trading on Tuesday, on reports of a potential plan to split the media empire in two.

Under the terms of the proposed split, the company would spin off its publishing business from its much larger entertainment unit, according to a person briefed on the matter. That would create two corporate entities: an entertainment giant, driven by a movie studio and powerful television networks, and a much smaller publishing unit containing Dow Jones and HarperCollins.

The move would be intended to appease shareholders unhappy with the general tepidness of News Corporation’s stock performance, which has not kept pace with the likes of the Walt Disney Company. While the company’s shares have risen more than 17 percent this year, that increase has been supported in part by an extensive and expensive stock buyback initiative. On Tuesday, News Corporation’s stock hit $21.50 shortly after the opening bell, its highest level since late 2007.

The potential split comes even as a phone-hacking investigation continues to cloud News Corporation’s newspaper business in Britain.

The plan has the support of several News Corporation executives, notably the chief operating officer, Chase Carey, this person said. Mr. Carey said earlier this year that management had considered a split, though at the time he added that nothing had been decided.

The proposal has not been finalized. And while News Corporation’s patriarch, Rupert Murdoch, has softened his longstanding opposition to the plan, he has not signed off on it, the person said.

A number of factors remain to be resolved, including which operations would go into which entity, and — perhaps more important — which executives would head which businesses.

Still, an announcement about the corporate breakup could come as soon as this week, this person said.

“News Corporation confirmed today that it is considering a restructuring to separate its business into two distinct publicly traded companies,” the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/news-corp-shares-leap-on-split-reports/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Credit Suisse Said to Plan New Round of Layoffs in Europe

A branch of Credit Suisse in Basel, Switzerland. The I.R.S. asked for help in locating information on American account holders.Arnd Wiegmann/ReutersA branch of Credit Suisse in Basel, Switzerland.

LONDON – The Swiss bank Credit Suisse is planning to further reduce the size of its European investment banking department, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

Credit Suisse, which announced plans last year to eliminate 3,500 jobs as part of an overhaul of its worldwide operations, may reduce the work force in its European investment banking division by as much as 30 percent, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The new job reductions in that unit are part of the bank’s previously announced restructuring plans.

The cutbacks are expected to be focused in the bank’s advisory and capital markets businesses in Europe. Last month, the bank said it would let go 126 employees in the New York area by the beginning of August.

A spokesman for Credit Suisse declined to comment.

The new layoffs in Europe could take place over the next 12 months. In a progress report on its restructuring efforts, Credit Suisse said previously that it had eliminated 2,000 jobs by the end of March.

The prospect of layoffs in the bank’s European investment banking department comes soon after Switzerland’s central bank said Credit Suisse needed to increase its capital this year to prepare for a potential worsening of the European debt crisis

The Swiss National Bank singled out Credit Suisse in its annual financial stability report as a bank that needed to “significantly expand its loss-absorbing capital during the current year.”

In response, Credit Suisse said it was “comfortable” with its progress toward increasing capital reserves.

With a new round of layoffs in Europe, Credit Suisse is reacting to a broad reduction in deal activity and initial public offerings on the Continent prompted by market volatility and the debt crisis.

The total combined value of mergers and acquisitions in Europe has fallen 20 percent this year, to $382 billion, from the same period in 2011, according to the data provider Dealogic.

The total value of deals in Europe’s equity capital markets, including I.P.O.’s and rights issues, also fell 50 percent, to $60.4 billion, in the first half of the year.

Credit Suisse is not the only bank looking to cut back. A Swiss rival, UBS, has said it plans to cut 3,500 jobs, with about half of the layoffs expected within its investment banking division.

The French banks Société Générale and Crédit Agricole have also announced layoffs in response to a slowdown in the European economy.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/credit-suisse-said-to-plan-new-round-of-layoffs-in-europe/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Australian Billionaire Threatens to Dump Fairfax Media Stake

HONG KONG — The Australian mining billionaire Georgina Rinehart has threatened to sell her recently acquired 19 percent stake in Fairfax Media, sending shares in the Australian publisher tumbling on Tuesday.

The announcement is the latest volley in her battle to win seats on the board of the company, which publishes leading newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review and The Age. Mrs. Rinehart, who is known as Gina, is the richest woman in Asia.

Fairfax proposed a dramatic restructuring on June 18 to address several years of declining circulation, including plans to cut 1,900 jobs, or about 20 percent of its work force, over the next three years. On the same day, Mrs. Rinehart’s privately held Hancock Prospecting said it had increased its stake in Fairfax to 18.7 percent from 12.6 percent.

Despite several months of campaigning for board representation at Fairfax, however, Hancock has been denied a seat and has so far resisted calls to sign a pledge to maintain editorial independence at the publisher.

Hancock “had hoped that Mrs. Rinehart may be viewed by the board as a successful business person and a necessary ‘white knight,’ ” the mining company said on Tuesday in a letter posted on the Web site of the government-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“However unless director positions are offered without unsuitable conditions, Mrs. Rinehart is unable to assist Fairfax at this time,” Hancock said in the 11-page letter. In response to the denial of board representation, Mrs. Rinehart’s firm said it “may hence sell its interest, and may consider repurchasing at some other time.”

Shares in Fairfax closed down 3.5 percent on Tuesday after the statement from Hancock, closing at 55 Australian cents apiece, their lowest close since listing in 1992. The stock is down 23.6 percent this year.

The moves at Fairfax by Mrs. Rinehart — who in March was ranked No. 29 on the Forbes list of the world’s richest people, with a fortune of $18 billion — come amid one of the biggest shake-ups in Australian media in recent history.

Last week, the Australian arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation offered 1.97 billion Australian dollars ($1.98 billion) in cash in a takeover bid for the Sydney-listed Consolidated Media Holdings, controlled by the Australian casino and media magnate James Packer.

Mr. Murdoch’s News Limited, publisher of leading newspapers including The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and The Herald-Sun, said the deal would give it control over two of the country’s leading pay television businesses, Fox Sports Australia and the subscription cable television business Foxtel.

Mr. Packer, a billionaire who also invests in casinos in Australia, Macau and London, said the offer was “fair” and that he would support it, absent a higher cash offer.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/australian-billionaire-rinehart-threatens-to-dump-fairfax-media-stake/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook Column: A Con Man Who Lives Between Truth and Fiction

Former hedge fund manager Samuel Israel III after a hearing in 2008 in Massachusetts, ordering him to return to New York.Brian Snyder/ReutersFormer hedge fund manager Samuel Israel III after a hearing in 2008 in Massachusetts, ordering him to return to New York.

BUTNER, N.C. — “I’m a proven liar. Don’t believe anything I say.”

That was what Samuel Israel III told me last week. He is the hedge fund manager convicted of running a $450 million Ponzi scheme who faked his own suicide in the summer of 2008 to avoid his prison sentence before turning himself in after a worldwide manhunt.

He was sitting across from me in the visiting center of the Butner prison complex, about 45 minutes north of Raleigh in eastern North Carolina. (Bernard L. Madoff is in the same complex.)

DealBook Column
View all posts


Mr. Israel, 52, who is serving a 22-year sentence, was wearing a tan prison uniform with his hair grown out, a mass of silver and brown curls sprouting from the sides of his bald head. (“I’m never going to cut it until I get out,” he exclaimed.)

I was there to talk to him because his story is a cautionary tale of the highly sophisticated, often endemic, fraud that still lurks on Wall Street. People I spoke with who dealt with him are still mystified about the breach of trust and how no one had a clue about his deception until it was too late.

“Everyone cheats,” he said as a matter of fact.

“I’m not a liar,” he insisted, affably. “I became a liar.”

I flew down to visit Mr. Israel after reading an advance copy of a book about him that is coming out in two weeks, “Octopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street’s Wildest Con” by Guy Lawson (Crown). I was riveted by Mr. Lawson’s telling of Mr. Israel’s bizarre conduct — sometimes genius and often sickening.

Here’s a quick recap of his sordid story: A native of New Orleans who is the grandson of a well-known commodities trader on Wall Street, he started Bayou Hedge Fund Group in 1996 and quickly became a rising star, amassing money from some of the most-respected investors on Wall Street based on the firm’s trading track record. Bayou traded through, among other firms, a unit of Goldman Sachs. There was only one problem: the firm’s profits were fictitious. Completely made up. In truth, Bayou consistently lost money. The firm’s accounting firm, which blessed Mr. Israel’s numbers in letters to investors, was also fictitious. Mr. Israel and his partners created the accounting shop out of thin air, including its stationery and logo.

After the fraud unraveled in 2005 as his losses mounted and investors demanded their money, Mr. Israel pleaded guilty. But after he was sentenced to 20 years in prison (the sentence was extended after his efforts to avoid prison), he faked his suicide on Bear Mountain just north of Manhattan, leaving his GMC Envoy on a bridge after writing “Suicide is Painless” in dust on the hood. He was on the run for two months during which, he now says, he tried to commit suicide for real, but failed. He told me he turned himself in after he saw himself on TV and was struck by how many people he had truly hurt. “I was watching America’s Most Wanted and I see me!” he said. “I said, ‘Oh my god!’ ”

His girlfriend, Debra Ryan, had been arrested on charges of helping him with his escape plan. “I have so many regrets but my biggest is ruining this poor girl’s life. The only reason they screwed her was to get to me — and it worked. I knew they were coming for my mother next.” (Ms. Ryan plead guilty and was sentenced to house arrest.)

So how did Mr. Israel’s fraud begin?

He said building a fraud was never the plan. (It never is.) Early on, he said the firm had made a series of losing trades. He was willing to lie to his investors — which he claimed was his partners’ idea — because he thought that by the next quarter he would be able to make back a profit.

“I thought, ‘I can make this back.’ I wasn’t worried in the least,” he said. “I was a good trader. I was a workaholic.” He added: “Was it hard to lie in the beginning? No. Did it get harder? Yes. I lived with this beast every day. I lived with ‘the hole.’ It was awful. It was the worst feeling in the world.”

Yet he continued to lose — and lie, compounding lies upon more elaborate lies.

At one of his lowest moments, he said, he chased what he believed was a “secret market” supposedly run by the Federal Reserve in order to make back the lost money for investors. Along the way, he fell in with a con man, and of course, never was able to return any money to investors.

The story is mind-boggling. But it raises the question of why no one saw the red flags.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Israel said, “could not bother to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb because they did not have the manpower to do so.” He said that only six months before the firm’s collapse the S.E.C. had looked at its trading and “they did not see anything wrong.”

Goldman Sachs’s execution and clearing unit, formerly known as Spear Leeds Kellogg, which cleared trades for Bayou, was fined $20.6 million by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for not spotting the fraud. The firm is appealing the decision.

“Are there similar frauds going on today?” Mr. Israel asked. “I am most sure there are.”

What, I asked him, can an investor do to avoid being conned by the next Samuel Israel?

“Seek as much transparency as possible,” he said. “If they do not understand exactly how a manager is making money, do not invest. If there is a secret process that cannot be explained, run. Go see the organization yourself, talk to the employees. The manager cannot see everyone or he could not be making money; if he has all the time in the world for you, that is a flag.”

Mr. Israel is a good salesman, even in prison. It is clear why he was able to get away with his fraud for as long as he did. He is likable; he likes to tell you about his mistakes and acts as if he has known you forever. When I first sat down to talk with him, he offered me an orange Life Saver. When he mentioned Mr. Madoff, he leaned in to confide — as if we were best friends — that the Butner grapevine had it Mr. Madoff was “a terrible guy. Not a nice dude.”

About halfway through, the interview turned bizarre when Mr. Israel, on the verge of crying, announced: “I took a man’s life. I shot him twice.”

I asked for more details. The story is recounted in “Octopus,” but the author, Mr. Lawson, doesn’t appear to believe it. In the supposed slaying, Mr. Israel describes himself defending a known con man, Robert Booth Nichols, who claimed to have once worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and has since died. Mr. Nichols was undertaking a secret trade at a German bank and was ambushed outside by a cockeyed “Middle Eastern guy.” Mr. Israel says he shot the ambusher in the hip and then in the head.

He looked at me, shaking, and said, “I’ve seen someone with their head blown off maybe two feet back — as close as I am to you.”

Mr. Israel recognized my skepticism. When I asked him what happened to the body, he said, “Bob made a couple of calls.”

Again, I looked at him quizzically.

“These people can do anything. They can get rid of a body,” he said. “Come on,” he added, looking at me as if I didn’t understand. “They can kill presidents.”

I wasn’t sure what he was talking about. “The J.F.K. thing,” he said. He went on to tell me that he had videotapes of Kennedy’s assassination and that one was stolen by the F.B.I. “I know it makes me look like a crackpot,” he said. “But I know it’s real. Look into my eyes — I don’t care if people think I’m crazy.”

When I asked Mr. Lawson what to make of Mr. Israel’s more adventurous stories, he told me: “I don’t think he’s lying. But that doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth.”

Mr. Lawson holds out the possibility that a murder was staged in Hamburg. But, he said, Mr. Israel “believes J.F.K. was assassinated by the C.I.A. I don’t.” The author added: “That’s the nature of confidence games — it becomes impossible to tell where the truth ends and deception begins.”

My conversation with Mr. Israel left me with a sense that at some level Wall Street, too, is a confidence game. Investors are sometimes too busy looking for profits to notice where the truth ends and the deception begins.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/a-con-man-who-lives-between-truth-and-fiction/?partner=rss&emc=rss