|
This essay originally appeared at The Daily
Reckoning.
Picture this: On one side of the negotiating table was Frederick Augustus
Heinze, the illustrious American copper magnate. The "Boy Wonder" was only
29, but already a celebrity among the business barons of the day. The Brooklyn-born
entrepreneur was, by all accounts, brilliant, uncompromising, dashing - and
very rich.
On the other side of the table was Walter Hull Aldridge, a bright metallurgist,
representing the Canadian Pacific Railroad. At issue between them was a copper
smelter Heinze owned in Trail, British Columbia, along with a short-line railroad
called the Columbia & Western.
The Canadian Pacific Railroad was feeling its oats about this time - having
generated a substantial profit the year before - its trains laden with incoming
settlers and freight. Flush with cash to invest, the railroad had visions of
expanding across western Canada, hauling coal, coke, wheat, machinery, lumber
and metals across the resource-rich region.
The Canadian Pacific was interested in Heinze's rail because it fit nicely
in their plans. Late in 1897, they made an offer for it. Heinze, though, wouldn't
sell just the railroad. He would sell the whole shebang - smelter and rail
- or he wouldn't sell at all. His asking price was $1.2 million. Heinze was
running a bluff - his Canadian operations were not doing so well, and his American
interests demanded his attention. The Trail operation's outlook was not so
bright, either, with the threat of competing smelters being built in the area.
The railroad wanted the C&W badly enough, however, and finally agreed
to include the smelter in their offer. Now they were struggling to meet Heinze's
price.
The two negotiators worked late into the cold night of Feb.11, 1898, and reached
an impasse. Heinze offered to play poker for the difference, which was about
$300,000. Aldridge - wisely, I think - declined. Heinze had a reputation as
a good poker player.
Eventually, the railroad swallowed hard and met Heinze's price. Just like
that, the Canadian Pacific Railroad was in the smelter business. Aldridge stayed
on as managing director of the company that the railroad created to house the
smelter. Under Aldridge's direction, the smelter not only supplied copper,
but was also putting out pure lead and fine gold and silver by 1902.
Flush with cash from the sale, Heinze moved to New York and became involved
in banks and trusts - a move that would lead to his undoing. "Most men gamble
with her [Fortune]," Ralph Waldo Emerson once observed, "and gain all, and
lose all, as her wheel rolls." Heinze, not content to live with his riches,
made a bid for more.
In the early 1900s, most banks were prohibited from taking on trust accounts
(wills, estates, etc.) by their charters. Trust companies were specifically
set up to deal with this business. Though initially, trusts were regarded as
safe-haven investments, they eventually became highly speculative - they were
like the hedge funds of their day. And like the hedge funds of today, trusts
became heavily invested in the stock market using extreme leverage, or borrowed
money. They didn't keep much in the way of reserves and were susceptible to
sudden adverse changes in stock prices.
Also, trust company directors were often involved in banks, and the banks,
though they could not do trust business, could own trusts. As a result, there
was this web of connected relationships between some of the large speculators
and the banks. This was not so different from the way the now-infamous hedge
fund Long Term Capital Management was intertwined with many of the nation's
financial institutions when it failed in 1998 - threatening to take the whole
financial system with it before a bailout was arranged.
So when, on Oct. 16, 1907, the price of United Copper closed at $15 - down
76% from its high only two days earlier - the headlines the next day were grim. "Copper
Breaks Heinze," blared the Boston Post. Heinze was heavily invested in United
Copper. If Heinze were only a copper speculator, history may be been quite
different. But Heinze owned a bank and was associated with a number of other
banks.
He was president of Mercantile National Bank, for example, a position that
he promptly relinquished as his plight became public. But it didn't prevent
a run by Mercantile's depositors in the wake of the news, as depositors scrambled
to get their money for fear that the bank might be involved with Heinze's losses.
Other banks rallied around Mercantile and supported it, however, which helped
it weather the storm.
Heinze's bank, Butte Savings Bank, failed the next day, as did the brokerage
owned by his brother. The real backbreaker was when the Knickerbocker Trust
Co., in New York, experienced a run on its deposits. Its president, Charles
Barney, was an associate of Heinze. Knickerbocker had 18,000 depositors, and
in a matter of hours, worried depositors had skinned the Knickerbocker for
some $8 million.
No one came to Knickerbocker's aid - not even the great J.P. Morgan, who would
assist other troubled banks during the crisis. Some historians believe that
this was part of a deliberate campaign by the banks to destroy the credibility
of the trusts. The banks felt threatened by the growth of the trusts, and reasoned
that if the Knickerbocker failed, the public would lose faith in the trusts
and the banks would gain. Plus, a man like Heinze had many enemies eager to
capitalize on his plight. Or perhaps Morgan didn't like what he saw in Knickerbocker
and thought it beyond help.
In any event, Barney, Knickerbocker's president, shot himself dead that night,
and the Knickerbocker Trust did not open for business the next day. Runs began
in earnest, hitting banks and trusts all over New York. As one historian put
it, "The financial fires that were intended to ruin Heinze and the trust companies
quickly roared out of control, and the Panic of 1907 became a nondiscriminatory
economic catastrophe for the entire nation." The spark for the Panic of 1907
may have been a personal vendetta gone awry. As Glasscock observes, "F. Augustus
Heinze was to the Panic of 1907 as the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was to the
World War."
Even so, the Panic of 1907 was like many of the crises that went before it
and would happen after it. It was inevitable, because highly leveraged and
overextended lenders and speculators lead to eventual ruin.
The Panic of 1907 was not the worst financial crisis in American finance,
but it was critically important because the forces in favor of creating a national
bank - the Federal Reserve Bank - would gain strength, and the tide of public
opinion increasingly supported the idea. As a lender of last resort, the Federal
Reserve Bank would bail out failed banks and thereby stem future panics. The
Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913.
The real problem was that the banks had been allowed to renege on their obligations
to redeem their deposits in gold. This allowed them to inflate, to pyramid
deposits and loans on a smaller and smaller base of gold. The excess funds
created fueled speculation in the market. Failure was unavoidable in such situations.
Today, with a Federal Reserve Bank and deposit insurance, we seem to have
done away with the quaint notion of a bank run. Instead, we suffer near-continuous
debasement of our currency, a mostly gradual, but sure erosion in purchasing
power. We suffer from debts and deficits that would be impossible under a strict
gold standard. Who is the better for it?
The Panic of 1907 broke Heinze at the age of 37. With former partnerships
broken, millions lost, his reputation in tatters, and nearly two years spent
on legal battles - Heinze was exonerated - the defeated Copper King headed
back to Butte, where he was welcomed as a hero, with an automobile procession
and a live band celebrating his return. In Montana, he would live out his final
years rehabilitating some of his remaining mines. His health, though, was failing.
In 1914, only 44 years old, he suffered a hemorrhage of the stomach caused
by cirrhosis of the liver, and he died.
His biographer, Sarah McNelis, writes, "There was discussion of establishing
a scholarship or erecting a monument to retain his name and contribution to
the city [of Butte]. After the initial shock of his death faded, however, the
talk must have ceased; no such memorial was established." Today, Heinze is
almost forgotten.
Stories such as that of Heinze are intriguing to me because I see in these
events so many parallels with today's markets. I have long been fascinated
by the timeless qualities of finance, the constants of greed and speculation
and easy money, which forge the familiar patterns of boom and bust. "Easy money
makes a wild town," Glasscock observes. It also makes for a wild stock market.
In the Knickerbocker Trust, you have what may be a metaphor for Fannie Mae,
a large, but troubled financial institution, whose failure could also spark
a wider financial panic. Like the Knickerbocker Trust, Fannie Mae is no favorite
of the banks, which claim that Fannie's special privileges give it an unfair
advantage in the mortgage business. Those who have been bullied by Fannie in
the past would shed no tears should it get stuck in a financial pickle.
In Heinze, you see any number of beleaguered executives - men who tasted early
success, rode it to create brilliant fortunes, only to be forced to resign
in disgrace, with much of their empires disintegrated.
These tales are classic tragedies, told again and again in the dusty tomes
of financial history, with new ones being written nearly every day.
Editor's Note: Chris Mayer predicts that the scandal at Fannie Mae will have
far greater economic implications that anyone is ready for...and that's just
one of the events he sees unfolding in our near future. To find out all seven
of his forecasts for this year, see here: 7
Stunning Predictions for 2005
|