Large mini-bond insurer Ambac (NYSE: ABK) is considering breaking itself into two pieces. One, which would handle its portfolio of municipal bonds could keep its high credit rating. The other piece would keep its structured financial investment in securities including subprime instruments. The second part of the company may be nearly insolvent.
According to The Wall Street Journal, "Bond insurers in recent weeks have become ground zero in the global credit crisis because the companies contractually have agreed to stand behind billions of dollars in securities underpinned by U.S. subprime mortgage loans."
While it is clear why this is good for cities and states whose bonds are insured by the company because that keeps their high credit ratings, it is less clear why it benefits Ambac's common stockholders. If the operation is broken into two parts, who owns the valuable piece and who owns the worthless piece? In the end, stockholders who have already seen 80% of the market value in Ambac disappear as its shares have fallen, may get very little.
Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.
Facebook's IPO Debacle, Day 3: Un-Friended and Dis-Liked on Wall…
Former Olympic Rower Turned to Minimalism to Pay Down $82,000 in Debt


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-18-2008 @ 11:18AM
chuck bird said...
What has happened to OGMCX? I don't understand how the price of gold can change(up) and nothing happens- but if it goes down--OGMCX went down- and has stayed down. Are other investors curious about Oppenheimer--too?
2-18-2008 @ 4:48PM
Zach said...
I have a hard time understanding the fairness in a breakup such as what was mentioned in your article. It seems the benefit of a diversified insurer is that the multiple lines of business create stability for each category of liability. Those who invested in riskier mortgage debt securities insured by Ambac would most certainly object to a breakup of Ambac which would lead to the company reserving some capital for insuring municipal bonds instead of using that capital to meet obligations related to the mortgage securities. While I understand the frustration of municipal entities who now face higher borrowing costs because of the likely default of the insurers, it does not appear fair to further punish mortgage security holders by carving out part of Ambac's capital that would otherwise have been available to at least partially cover those obligations.
2-25-2008 @ 10:45PM
Brendon said...
The words fair, moral and safe should never be used in the world of business. Business is all about making money, its risky and there is always the chance things will break. Human nature makes us greedy, we are all to willing to take as much as we can get been shareholders, and often don’t care who it harms in the process as long as the botton line looks good for us, Ambac is no exception, but we all know there is risk, and this time someone has to loose. Ambac is like a living animal, its now got to fight to protect itself, part of that will most likely be to offload the risk, for those who will loose, remember those words, fair, moral, safe, there is no such thing, you were willing to take and make of others, now your own greed will come back to bit you.