如
果说高盛集团(Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)的交易员有一条技能可引以为傲，那就是低买高抛的艺术。
Associated Press
高盛亏本出售了陷入困境的出版机构Lee Enterprises所欠贷款，但巴菲特购得这批贷款后实现了可观的账面利润。
其中一笔交易的细节最近在市场上引起了轰动。去年11月，高盛出售了困难重重的报纸出版机构Lee Enterprises Inc.欠它的8,500万美元贷款，售价为账面价值的65%。而几个月前它是以相当于账面价值80%的铅钱买入这笔贷款的，所以至少亏了1,300万美元。
多位知情人士说，买主是巴菲特(Warren Buffett)旗下公司伯克希尔•哈撒韦(Berkshire Hathaway Inc.)的一家子公司。
这些人士说，后来这批贷款在巴菲特手中实现了不少的账面利润。目前这笔贷款的价值相当于账面价值的82%。
高盛一位发言人拒绝评论这批贷款。巴菲特没有回复置评请求。
高盛卖出这批贷款时，政府正考虑出台一些新的监管措施，高盛管理层担心这些措施可能会限制它持有、买卖贷款的能力。当时高盛内部也担心金融市场继今年实现开门红之后，可能会朝着坏的方面发展。另外，为更加侧重于辅助客户之间的交易，高盛当时还在全面整合信贷交易部门。
高盛在2011年春季决定大幅减少其最大贷款交易部门所持贷款的数额。这个部门名叫全球银行贷款交易与不良债务投资部，它当时拥有40多亿美元的投资组合。这个部门整个夏季都在大规模抛售，而当时欧美市场刚好是在暴跌。去年10月份，该部门与另外一个部门合并，它的交易员在继续抛售，造成更多损失。
10月底，高盛把这个贷款交易部门同一个专做债券的交易部门合并在一起。两者之间差异甚大。贷款交易部门是一个私人交易部门，可接触到所持贷款借款人的机密信息，这是自营交易的关键优势。而债券交易部门只能接触到公开信息。
Associated Press
Lee Enterprises拥有的圣路易斯邮报。
知情人士说，去年11月，高盛接到花旗集团(Citigroup Inc.)一位贷款交易员打来的电话，说一位身份未明的客户有意购买Lee Enterprises的贷款。
高盛当时已经在跟Lee Enterprises的其他债主一道为这家在困境中挣扎的出版商制定一套破产方案。这些债主包括Monarch Alternative Capital LP和Mudrick Capital Management LP。但高盛还是同意卖掉Lee Enterprises的贷款。
当时高盛不知道买主是巴菲特。巴菲特还曾在金融危机期间投资高盛公司，斥资逾15亿美元。虽然这笔买卖是在2011年11月达成的，但直到今年3月份，巴菲特的身份才被泄露出来。
巴菲特后来又通过BH Finance LLC购买了Lee Enterprises公司的更多贷款，一位知情人士说，这包括上星期购入的一笔500万美元贷款。这次他付的价格是账面价值的81.5%，比付给高盛的价格高出25%。
Matt Wirz
（本文版权归道琼斯公司所有，未经许可不得翻译或转载。）
If there is one skill Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) traders pride themselves on, it is the art of buying low and selling high.
But last year, anticipating new regulatory restrictions on proprietary trading and seeking to reduce the bank's exposure to risky assets, Goldman loan traders unloaded hundreds of millions of dollars of leveraged loans at a loss, people familiar with the matter say. Making matters worse, many of those loans have since jumped in value.
Details of one trade in particular have recently caused a stir in the market. In November, Goldman sold about $85 million of loans in troubled newspaper publisher Lee Enterprises Inc. Goldman sold the debt at about 65 cents on the dollar, having bought it months before at around 80 cents, resulting in a loss of at least $13 million.
The buyer: a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRKA, BRKB), according to several people familiar with the matter.
Buffett has since made a tidy paper profit on the loans, which are now worth about 82 cents on the dollar, the people said.
A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the loan sales. Buffett didn't return requests for comment.
The sale of loans came amid discussions of new regulations that Goldman officials worried might restrict its ability to own and trade loans, and concerns within the firm that financial markets could take a turn for the worse after a promising start to the year. Goldman, as well, was conducting a broad consolidation of its credit-trading desks as it focused more on facilitating trades between customers.
Goldman decided in the spring of 2011 to vastly reduce the amount of loans held by its biggest loan-trading desk, called the global bank-loan trading and distressed-debt investing unit, which had a portfolio of more than $4 billion. The desk sold heavily through the summer, just as U.S. and European markets were collapsing. In October, that desk was merged with another desk, whose traders continued to sell, creating additional losses.
At the end of October, Goldman combined the loan-trading desk with a trading desk that specialized in bonds. The difference between the two was large. The loan desk was a private desk with access to confidential information about the borrowers of the loans it held, a crucial advantage in proprietary trading. The bond desk only had access to public information.
Traders on the enlarged public desk jettisoned many of the loans they inherited because they didn't want to risk losses on positions they weren't familiar with, the people said. That included the Lee Enterprises loans, they said.
In November, Goldman received a call from a loan trader at Citigroup Inc., who said an unidentified client was interested in buying Lee Enterprises loans, the people said.
Goldman had been working with other Lee creditors, including Monarch Alternative Capital LP and Mudrick Capital Management LP, on a bankruptcy plan for the struggling publisher that was on the verge of coming together. Nevertheless, Goldman traders agreed to sell the Lee loan.
At the time, the bank didn't know the buyer was Buffett, who also had made more than $1.5 billion on an investment he made in Goldman during the financial crisis. While the trade was agreed in November, it wasn't until March that Buffett's identity leaked out.
Through BH Finance LLC, Buffett has been buying more Lee loans, snapping up $5 million worth last week, said a person familiar with the situation. This time he paid 81.5 cents on the dollar, 25% more than he paid Goldman.
Matt Wirz
本文涉及股票或公司
But last year, anticipating new regulatory restrictions on proprietary trading and seeking to reduce the bank's exposure to risky assets, Goldman loan traders unloaded hundreds of millions of dollars of leveraged loans at a loss, people familiar with the matter say. Making matters worse, many of those loans have since jumped in value.
Details of one trade in particular have recently caused a stir in the market. In November, Goldman sold about $85 million of loans in troubled newspaper publisher Lee Enterprises Inc. Goldman sold the debt at about 65 cents on the dollar, having bought it months before at around 80 cents, resulting in a loss of at least $13 million.
The buyer: a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRKA, BRKB), according to several people familiar with the matter.
Buffett has since made a tidy paper profit on the loans, which are now worth about 82 cents on the dollar, the people said.
A Goldman spokesman declined to comment on the loan sales. Buffett didn't return requests for comment.
The sale of loans came amid discussions of new regulations that Goldman officials worried might restrict its ability to own and trade loans, and concerns within the firm that financial markets could take a turn for the worse after a promising start to the year. Goldman, as well, was conducting a broad consolidation of its credit-trading desks as it focused more on facilitating trades between customers.
Goldman decided in the spring of 2011 to vastly reduce the amount of loans held by its biggest loan-trading desk, called the global bank-loan trading and distressed-debt investing unit, which had a portfolio of more than $4 billion. The desk sold heavily through the summer, just as U.S. and European markets were collapsing. In October, that desk was merged with another desk, whose traders continued to sell, creating additional losses.
At the end of October, Goldman combined the loan-trading desk with a trading desk that specialized in bonds. The difference between the two was large. The loan desk was a private desk with access to confidential information about the borrowers of the loans it held, a crucial advantage in proprietary trading. The bond desk only had access to public information.
Traders on the enlarged public desk jettisoned many of the loans they inherited because they didn't want to risk losses on positions they weren't familiar with, the people said. That included the Lee Enterprises loans, they said.
In November, Goldman received a call from a loan trader at Citigroup Inc., who said an unidentified client was interested in buying Lee Enterprises loans, the people said.
Goldman had been working with other Lee creditors, including Monarch Alternative Capital LP and Mudrick Capital Management LP, on a bankruptcy plan for the struggling publisher that was on the verge of coming together. Nevertheless, Goldman traders agreed to sell the Lee loan.
At the time, the bank didn't know the buyer was Buffett, who also had made more than $1.5 billion on an investment he made in Goldman during the financial crisis. While the trade was agreed in November, it wasn't until March that Buffett's identity leaked out.
Through BH Finance LLC, Buffett has been buying more Lee loans, snapping up $5 million worth last week, said a person familiar with the situation. This time he paid 81.5 cents on the dollar, 25% more than he paid Goldman.
Matt Wirz
本文涉及股票或公司
没有评论:
发表评论