From Moon of AL. Bernhard links to two powerful posts:
William Buiter is "speechless and weak with rage" about how the Fed handled the AIG mess. Read whole thing. Wince, rage, sharpen the tines of your pitchfork...but do read the whole piece.
SNIP...When it was uncovered during the late summer of 2008, that AIG had nurtured a little rogue, unregulated investment banking unit in its bosom, and that the level of the credit risk it had insured was well beyond its means, the AIG counterparties, that is, the buyers of the CDS, were caught with their pants down.
Instead of saying, “how sad, too bad” to these counterparties, the Fed decided (in the words of the Wall Street Journal), to unwind “.. some AIG contracts that were weighing down the insurance giant by paying off the trading partners at the full value they expected to realize in the long term, even though short-term values had tumbled.”
The logic of collective action teaches us that a small group of interested parties, each with much at stake, will run rings around large numbers of interested parties each one of which has much less at stake individually, even though their aggregate stake may well be larger. The organised lobbying bulldozer of Wall Street sweeps the floor with the US tax payer anytime. The modalities of the bailout by the Fed of the AIG counterparties is a textbook example of the logic of collective action at work. It is scandalous: unfair, inefficient, expensive and unnecessary. (Emphasis mine)
Then, Bob O'Brien of Sanity Check (who I don't know, but do trust Bernhard's links):
I think the defining moment for me was when Bernanke responded to the question from Congress, as to whether the American people (and their elected representatives in Congress) would be told to whom all their tax dollars have been given or lent. That single word summed it up perfectly for me: "No."
Any illusions that the money trust in the US, that collection of bankers and hedge fund managers and industrialists who are the beneficiaries of the systematic looting of the Treasury under the current "emergency" measures, is going to do anything other than precisely whatever it likes, or is going to report to those being looted, was dispelled at that moment. Likewise, nobody has been able to articulate why the massive swindle at AIG continues to be subsidized by our tax dollars - but again, no reporting on where those dollars are going will be forthcoming.
SNIP
So AIG sells insurance for which it has no collateral, thinly disguising it as credit default swaps, to those with no financial interest in the things being insured (which is illegal if insurance), and you and I get to pay those who bought the swaps and are now collecting big on the destruction of the market and the American way of life. Not a mention of simply making swaps illegal and calling them what they are - illegal insurance, which should be null and void. Nope. Instead, we get to pay out hundreds of billions, to Goldman and the Saudis and whomever else is fortunate enough to be a counterparty - but we can't know to whom the billions are being paid. Again. That's a secret.
I was thinking about how casual the disregard for the rule of law has become on Wall Street, and how confident the money trust is in our apathy and our absence of the will or the means to interfere with their schemes. And well they should be. As nothing has, and likely nothing will.When I started writing about the naked short selling scam, and the underlying larceny that drove it, I predicted it would ultimately destroy the engine of prosperity that is the US market system. My reasoning was simple - if you allow crooks to run the system, to take money without requiring they deliver what they were paid for, you don't have a market, you have a giant fraud. And a system built upon a foundation of fraud isn't sustainable...
Damn. I was trying to explain to a friend how the CDS things worked, got nowhere until I used the example of me buying house insurance and someone down the block buying a CDS thing from AIG which would pay that neighbor if and when my house does burn down. It hit her then that the person down the block was simply gambling. She kept using the work "gambling" in rewording what was happening with AIG. She was getting it and bit -- and getting angry.
When the general pubic gloms onto what has been going on, where our 'bailout" money is going and for what, there will be massive fury. Massive.
It seems that parts of the press are actually beginning to report on some of the realities of the Big Meltdown Me$$ -- previously, this kind of thing was found mostly on the economics blogs, right? Now there's been the WSJ report on where the AIG money went, the articles we've been collecting here at Corrente.
Obama better get a clue, or he will be reviled along with Hoover. As will the Dems. I do not want Obama to fail; I want him to do well for the country and for himself. I want the Dems to get with the principles of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Get a grip, Mr. Prez! Shake Geithner and Summers out of the Wall Street force field, find a way to melt their brain freeze. Now, now, NOW!
- jawbone's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+


Front page




Comments
C'mon, be fair
Obama and Tim are doing well for the people who matter.
Yes, the Average Joe and Josephine is hanging on for dear life, if at all, but the Masters of the Universe will be spared. I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed...
this is wrong..
I was trying to explain to a friend how the CDS things worked, got nowhere until I used the example of me buying house insurance and someone down the block buying a CDS thing from AIG which would pay that neighbor if and when my house does burn down.
_
CDS's were always based on something. CDS were not mortgage insurance so much as a means of guaranteeing fixed income from a security whose cash flow was not fixed.
_
Lets say I set up a mortgage backed security that consists of 100 30 year mortgages that were each for $200K at 7% fixed interest. I split up that security into 1000 shares, and sell them each for $20K (and collect a fee)-- and each share gets an equal part of the money collected from those mortgages each month. Ideally, each month I should get a check for $133.06 each month for 30 years if everyone pays as scheduled.
_
This security, however, does not provide that steady source of income, because some people pay late, some people pay early, some people sell, some people refinance, and some people default, all of which means that there is going to be wide variability in terms of how much money a shareholder gets each month. So some months I get a check for $406 if people sell their homes, or refinance, or default -- and the subsequent checks amounts will be lower, because those mortgages are no longer included in the security once they've been sold.
_
So the shareholder buys a CDS, which guarantees a steady rate of return for a fee. The seller of the CDS only loses out if the aggregate income from the security falls below the return on $133.06/month -- in other words, the costs of default only fall on the seller of the CDS toward the end of the term of CDS because every time someone sells their house, or refinances, or even defaults, you get a check that is bigger than $133.06.
_
However, you don't have to buy a CDS for the full 30 years -- you can buy one that covers only the first two years of payments, and insures the value of the balance of the security for that time period, for instance. And if there are a lot of late payments and foreclosures, and few resales or refinancings, the seller of the CDS looses lots of money. (The value of your security also falls, because default rates are high, and while the CDS made you "whole" for defaults that occurred during the first two years, it doesn't cover subsequent defaults. )
_
The other thing to keep in mind is that you can leverage your CDS-backed security -- in other words, because the security is insured against loss, its as good as cash in the financial world.
_
Okay, now lets go back to that original security, and say that instead of one share, you buy 100 shares. You can now create your own securities by creating 100 shares divided into 5 traches based on the underlying collateral. Each share costs 20,000, but the first tranche is backed by the first 20% of the income generated by the securities and pays only 5%, the second tranche is backed by the send 20% of income and pays 6%....and the fifth tranche is backed by the last 20% of income and pays 9% ($160/mo.)
_
Now, you're in good shape as long as you sell all the tranches, because you're generating fees on the sale of these tranches while incurring no risk. Mr. X, who buys one of the fifth tranche, goes out and buys a CDS to cover his risk, while Mr. Y, who bought some of the first tranche, doesn't buy a CDS because he has almost no risk.
_
and this is where the system breaks down when home values go south. Defaults mean that Mr. X is getting only $80 a month from you, and the seller of Mr. X's CDS is paying out $80/month to Mr. X out of his own pocket In a year, the seller of Mr. X's CDS goes broke and declares bankruptcy. Mr X is also screwed, because nobody will sell him a new CDS for his investment, and its generatiing only $80/month instead of the expected $160/mo because of foreclosures. And because Mr. X borrowed money based on an income of $160/month, he has to try and sell his share -- but there is nobody willing to buy the share the Mr. X owns because its so risky -- and Mr. X goes bankrupt as well.
Paul, thnx much-I was trying to explain the sidebet CDS's to my
friend, the purchases of bets on other's CDS's (purchasing CDS's for one's exposure of actual assets (the bond seller, for example, who has real skin in the game so to speak) vs. an uninvolved party which is simply placing a bet that the bondholder will not be repaid.
So, economists who say the sidebet type CDS's are not based on real assets are wrong? And how does this apply to the bond market?
Clearly, punnily enough, I am still not understanding this enough to make my examples work. But it has been explained by those who do with the race track metaphor. As in, when bets are placed on a horse, who has a real asset at risk? Supposedly the answer is the horse's owner; all others have no assets involved (other than the initial betting money) and are gambling. Some bets are placed at the betting window, but others are by parties betting among themselves. (In the real world, an AIG is needed to bring the parties together; in the example, they could be standing watching someone make a bet and then betting among themselves they he will lose. Or any take they wished to bed on. In the real world, it's bets among two parties bcz of AIG's or other such non-insurance insurers) involvement. Right? or still wrong?
I need help here: How can I make the CDS's and their derivatives understandable to someone who just throws up his or her hands and says, "No one knows what's going on, so who can blame X person (Geithtner, Obama, anyone in position to take action, even the banksters responsible for selling these things) for not knowing what to do. How can I explain how these derivatives have "blown up" the global ecnomy? Or am I wrong, perhaps misreading the econ types who are saying this is much the case?
The WSJ wrote that the $150B given to AIG went to some of the biggest players, the biggest Big Bankster Boiz, so Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, RBS are getting paid by AIG, with taxpayer funds and also getting direct bailout funds from governments with taxpayer funds. Hhmmm....
Another thing I'd like you opinion on: I recently linked to a Bloomberg article about Nobel Prize winning economist Myron Scholes calling for regulators "to 'blow up or burn' over-the-counter derivative trading markets to help solve the financial crisis. "
An update has been added to the article:
Does the $531 Trillion figure mean the total out there -- or are some of the same derivatives being traded several times, but included in this figurel? Either way, its' an astounding figure-- how much wealth is there in the world??Time to thrown up hands?