
Usually when economysterians like Dakinikat explain money stuff they use a semi-secret special language that makes my eyes glaze over and I slump lifelessly in a semi-comatose state until they are done. Even Paul Krugman droneswrites in a narcolepsy-inducing shrill monotone. That’s why I have had trouble understanding WTF happened to our economy until Matt Taibbi explained in plain English how Joseph Cassano caused the AIG meltdown:
The mess Cassano created had its roots in an investment boom fueled in part by a relatively new type of financial instrument called a collateralized-debt obligation. A CDO is like a box full of diced-up assets. They can be anything: mortgages, corporate loans, aircraft loans, credit-card loans, even other CDOs. So as X mortgage holder pays his bill, and Y corporate debtor pays his bill, and Z credit-card debtor pays his bill, money flows into the box.
The key idea behind a CDO is that there will always be at least some money in the box, regardless of how dicey the individual assets inside it are. No matter how you look at a single unemployed ex-con trying to pay the note on a six-bedroom house, he looks like a bad investment. But dump his loan in a box with a smorgasbord of auto loans, credit-card debt, corporate bonds and other crap, and you can be reasonably sure that somebodyis going to pay up. Say $100 is supposed to come into the box every month. Even in an apocalypse, when $90 in payments might default, you’ll still get $10. What the inventors of the CDO did is divide up the box into groups of investors and put that $10 into its own level, or “tranche.” They then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.
Suddenly, thanks to this financial seal of approval, banks had a way to turn their shittiest mortgages and other financial waste into investment-grade paper and sell them to institutional investors like pensions and insurance companies, which were forced by regulators to keep their portfolios as safe as possible. Because CDOs offered higher rates of return than truly safe products like Treasury bills, it was a win-win: Banks made a fortune selling CDOs, and big investors made much more holding them.
The problem was, none of this was based on reality. “The banks knew they were selling crap,” says a London-based trader from one of the bailed-out companies. To get AAA ratings, the CDOs relied not on their actual underlying assets but on crazy mathematical formulas that the banks cooked up to make the investments look safer than they really were. “They had some back room somewhere where a bunch of Indian guys who’d been doing nothing but math for God knows how many years would come up with some kind of model saying that this or that combination of debtors would only default once every 10,000 years,” says one young trader who sold CDOs for a major investment bank. “It was nuts.”
The mathmagical formulas were based on a truthiness that sounds kinda like life insurance. When you buy life insurance you’re betting on how long you will live – if you die sooner rather than later you win the bet. With any one person there are so many variables that the bet is a crapshoot, but the casinos insurance companies figured out that with a big enough pool of people the variables cancel each other out and they can accurately calculate the odds of when bettors suckers the insureds will croak so that the house wins more often than not. Those odds are called “actuarial tables.”
So what these smooth-talking number crunchers did was they cooked up a “system” and sold it as a sure fire way to beat the odds. As many of us have learned the hard way Las Vegas was built on such schemes. The difference is we were gambling with our own money.
But AIG wasn’t investing in collateralized debt obligations, they were insuring them:
Now that even the crappiest mortgages could be sold to conservative investors, the CDOs spurred a massive explosion of irresponsible and predatory lending. In fact, there was such a crush to underwrite CDOs that it became hard to find enough subprime mortgages — read: enough unemployed meth dealers willing to buy million-dollar homes for no money down — to fill them all. As banks and investors of all kinds took on more and more in CDOs and similar instruments, they needed some way to hedge their massive bets — some kind of insurance policy, in case the housing bubble burst and all that debt went south at the same time. This was particularly true for investment banks, many of which got stuck holding or “warehousing” CDOs when they wrote more than they could sell. And that’s were Joe Cassano came in.
Known for his boldness and arrogance, Cassano took over as chief of AIGFP in 2001. He was the favorite of Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the head of AIG, who admired the younger man’s hard-driving ways, even if neither he nor his successors fully understood exactly what it was that Cassano did. According to a source familiar with AIG’s internal operations, Cassano basically told senior management, “You know insurance, I know investments, so you do what you do, and I’ll do what I do — leave me alone.” Given a free hand within the company, Cassano set out from his offices in London to sell a lucrative form of “insurance” to all those investors holding lots of CDOs. His tool of choice was another new financial instrument known as a credit-default swap, or CDS.
The CDS was popularized by J.P. Morgan, in particular by a group of young, creative bankers who would later become known as the “Morgan Mafia,” as many of them would go on to assume influential positions in the finance world. In 1994, in between booze and games of tennis at a resort in Boca Raton, Florida, the Morgan gang plotted a way to help boost the bank’s returns. One of their goals was to find a way to lend more money, while working around regulations that required them to keep a set amount of cash in reserve to back those loans. What they came up with was an early version of the credit-default swap.
In its simplest form, a CDS is just a bet on an outcome. Say Bank A writes a million-dollar mortgage to the Pope for a town house in the West Village. Bank A wants to hedge its mortgage risk in case the Pope can’t make his monthly payments, so it buys CDS protection from Bank B, wherein it agrees to pay Bank B a premium of $1,000 a month for five years. In return, Bank B agrees to pay Bank A the full million-dollar value of the Pope’s mortgage if he defaults. In theory, Bank A is covered if the Pope goes on a meth binge and loses his job.
When Morgan presented their plans for credit swaps to regulators in the late Nineties, they argued that if they bought CDS protection for enough of the investments in their portfolio, they had effectively moved the risk off their books. Therefore, they argued, they should be allowed to lend more, without keeping more cash in reserve. A whole host of regulators — from the Federal Reserve to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — accepted the argument, and Morgan was allowed to put more money on the street.
What Cassano did was to transform the credit swaps that Morgan popularized into the world’s largest bet on the housing boom. In theory, at least, there’s nothing wrong with buying a CDS to insure your investments. Investors paid a premium to AIGFP, and in return the company promised to pick up the tab if the mortgage-backed CDOs went bust. But as Cassano went on a selling spree, the deals he made differed from traditional insurance in several significant ways. First, the party selling CDS protection didn’t have to post any money upfront. When a $100 corporate bond is sold, for example, someone has to show 100 actual dollars. But when you sell a $100 CDS guarantee, you don’t have to show a dime. So Cassano could sell investment banks billions in guarantees without having any single asset to back it up.
Secondly, Cassano was selling so-called “naked” CDS deals. In a “naked” CDS, neither party actually holds the underlying loan. In other words, Bank B not only sells CDS protection to Bank A for its mortgage on the Pope — it turns around and sells protection to Bank C for the very same mortgage. This could go on ad nauseam: You could have Banks D through Z also betting on Bank A’s mortgage. Unlike traditional insurance, Cassano was offering investors an opportunity to bet that someone else’shouse would burn down, or take out a term life policy on the guy with AIDS down the street. It was no different from gambling, the Wall Street version of a bunch of frat brothers betting on Jay Feely to make a field goal. Cassano was taking book for every bank that bet short on the housing market, but he didn’t have the cash to pay off if the kick went wide.
So basically AIG bet money it didn’t have and lost, and all the bailout money we gave it (and any more that we give it) will go to pay off the bookies. All the controversy over bonuses was misplaced – we’re talking BILLIONS of dollars in bad bets, while the bonus issue only concerns MILLIONS of our (not-yet) hard-earned tax dollars.

Joseph Cassano
——————————————————————————————–
Lewis Black on economics (action begins about 6:30 in):
These guys believe that a 350 billion dollar tax cut will stimulate the economy, and they are full of shit. Because they don’t know what stimulates the economy. The economy goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down, nobody knows why the fuck it happens. And I know this because I took economics, and I’d explain it to you… but I flunked that course.
Not my fault. They taught it at 8 o’clock in the morning. And there is absolute nothing that you can learn out of one bloodshot eye. After I failed a couple of tests, I grabbed my teacher by the throat and said “Are you trying to keep this shit a secret?”
If you like this post please share it with your friends:
Filed under: General



















Well, China, Russia and even socialist leaders in Europe don’t want to take bad bets anymore. They’re cutting up the U.S. credit card…
Yesterday’s symposium of “Team B” in DC must have upset a lot of Obamacrats who must have deliberately crashed the site. It was impossible to get onto listen and I barely got to catch some of the “summary” which I excerpted in case the site continues to be attacked.
It’s about as simple as it gets…
Russia-China Proposals; “Rebalancing” Global Currency Reserves: Why the U.S. Can’t Take Anything for Granted Re: the Dollar
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/russian-china-proposals-rebalancing-global-currency-reserves-why-the-us-cant-take-anything-for-granted-re-the-dollar/
Would you loan us any more money?
I wouldn’t, and I live here.
you just really love those naked shorts doncha?
Naked shorts??:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/77caf038b8/naked-dawn
The present economical situation is much like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube. Only the creator and a few other hotshots are adept enough to solve it while the rest of us wrestle with trying to figure out the solution much to our limitations.
So ultimately, it’s not the homeowner’s fault that “lived beyond their means,” (I hate that term) it’s the companies that sold them as diamonds to investors but are really worth cubic zirconium.
And the taxpayers have to pay their swindle.
Owning your own home is part of the American dream.
If the bank says you qualify for a loan, would you argue with them?
I wanna be a part of that dream (sniff) someday.
I would know whether I could afford the payments.
I watched one of the news mag shows last week and the excuses that a few women where making about how they believed the bank and did not hold themselves accountable made me sick.
I do not feel sorry for those people either….at least not all of them.
No sh!t, I remember when I went to buy a new car, I knew exactly how much I could afford to comfortably pay. Yes, the salespeople told me I could afford SO much more, but no one knows me and my lifestyle better than me. It is a load of BS and I am tired of hearing it.
TRK — I just said the same thing! About mortgages…. We desperately need a bigger car (too many kids!) but I just can’t bring myself to pull the trigger even on an unsexy used minivan.
Teresainpa, the problem with a lot of people now loosing their homes is twofolds. They got presented with montly payments they could afford but which were at the top of their range and they were not fully explained the fluctuation, resseting and balloning processes embeded in the loan they were signing.
They got “A” loan, like their parents had one, and they thought that if they were sending that amount to the bank every month for the next 30 years like their parents did, they would be fine.
The caveat was that they were buying houses at inflated values, with structured loans. And they were buying the most home they could.
That ‘s a perfect storm. Any decrease in income would stretches them financialy. And when their rates adjusted or resseted they had no idea what was going on.
And when they were gearing up to face their newly discovered financial responsabilities, they discovered they were under the water (or upside down), meaning their house value was not what they paid for by more than 10%.
My personnal philosophy has always be : On your principal residense, the only loans you consider are FIXED WITH NO BALLOON.
Agree. And get something that’s way below what the banks tell you you can qualify for.
wel yes, I agree with you. I just find it hard to feel sorry for people who did not understand the terms of their loans. I think many of them are guilty of magical thinking and frankly some greed.
In my town there are empty developments of McMansions because the god awful things where over priced plasterboard boxes before they were ever constructed. But drive in one if those developements with a kid or a recent emigrant from NYC and they think that is the ultimate in housing…..
maybe what we are really suffering from is massive poor taste.
Okay now I am just being a snob.
I watched one of the news mag shows last week and the excuses that a few women where making about how they believed the bank and did not hold themselves accountable made me sick…..
IMO.That is exactly the news mags/ media’s job…to make a sensible person like yourself feel that way . So they find the lamest asses possible out there.
teresainpa, on March 27th, 2009 at 11:33 am Said
…..maybe what we are really suffering from is massive poor taste….
I think that can be said on many fronts! lol!
Yes. they do. But the fact remains that those lame assholes exist, and in abundance. It’s a mixed bag of blame, in many shades of grey.
The lenders WERE predatory, and need to pay a price for that, no question. But to pretend that all of those people bear ZERO responsiblity for their own predicament is not something I buy. The fact that one was tempted and offered enticements does not erase the expectation of personal judgement. Temper it, yes. Eradicate it, no.
The drug pusher is a creep and a slime, and certainly more contemptible than the user, but one still has a choice.
I personally know people who were not “unaware” of eventual balloon payments, etc. They knew. They decided to gamble that housing would continue to rise, and that they could easily refinance when it came due. They deliberately bought more house than they could afford, even in markets where they could have gotten a perfectly adequate house in a nice neighborhood for much less. (Those in inflated and unreasonable areas I give a little more slack, as they had to stretch to be able to buy anything at all.)
I’m not saying they should be punished, either – certainly the lenders bear the lions share of blame for their scam. I’m saying that some homeowners do need to learn a hard lesson. Don’t go into debt for more than you are absolutely certain you can pay, then cut that figure back by a considerable percentage. Like our parents did, like our grandparents did.
Oh, and in spite of that I have no problem with cramming down and refinancing those loans. Not because I think they are all completely innocent victims (though some were less informed than others), but because it would be the fastest and least painful way to deflate the housing bubble, keep some stability, avoid famiies on the street, and restore sanity. If they can pay something reasonable monthly, then they should be allowed to.
I have said that over and over to people…and frankly blaming the little guy in this is like saying an assault victim ” asked for it ” because they got drunk at a bar or wore a cocktail dress. The American people are the victim here.
A simple formula that hasdn’t failed me yet :
Whoever the media blames in a given situation is the actual victim .
they are not to blame, but they are not totally victims either. What happened to being responsible, not buying what you could not afford?
I didn’t say they are a total victim. I said they got drunk. But that doesn’t get the assaulter off the main hook .
I’m all for being responsible and not buying what you cannot not afford . I won’t be pounding the bankers here if I wasn’t.
But who knows what they can and cannot afford in the banking world of ’05 or so ? As myiq2xu, said, if a banker says to the average person ” you can afford this, you are approved for this amount !! ” Who’s going to say” no Mr.or Ms Banker you are wrong!
Very few have the knowledge to even do so ….and those were the very group targeted. The bankers did know or should have known.
I would make sure I could afford the payments at least. Of course, lots of people could have done that and reasonably not foreseen 10% unemployment, plummeting house prices and 401k values, and all the other fun features of the new economy.
My solution to the bank offering me more $ than was reasonable was to use a simple mortgage calculator to figure out what payment I felt I could reasonably afford. Then I found out if I could qualify for the corresponding mortgage, while telling the mortgage broker, do NOT tell me how much more I could qualify for, I don’t want to know. So no temptation to go for the most expensive place the bank thought I could afford. Did my as*hat lawyer colleagues laugh at me for living in a crappy neighborhood in a small house? Yep, in 2003 they did. Now? Not so much.
I may end up upside down anyway. Two houses on our block have already been foreclosed. Ugh.
Bingo! And it’s all very reminiscent of the practices of good ol’ Enron and their Anderson accountants.
Exactly.
Banks sold these mortgages as super gourmet truffles but they were more like average everyday mushrooms.
And why didn’t anybody check the merchandise before buying is the question I’d like to know.
There were a bunch of toadstools thrown in there too
Banks sold these mortgages as super gourmet truffles
Right…that’s why it’s so bad. It’s fraud piled on top of ever more fraud on to infinity. The Bans knew what they were doing….and they know what they are doing now. Stealing every trillion they can before the gig is up.
I think I finally get it. It’s like the futures market – only regulated as they were banks savings accounts. or in other words, the banks use our savings accounts to bet on horses – and when they lose, they ask for our tax money to cover the loss.
Except we lose our savings accounts anyway.
Russia-China Proposals; “Rebalancing” Global Currency Reserves: Why the U.S. Can’t Take Anything for Granted Re: the Dollar
Even if they weren’t going to do it, just putting the suggestion out there will get them benefits. In the last thread elixir, on March 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am asked ” How will the elderly survive when their income keeps dwindling?
Well guess what ? In this cae WE are the elderly living on a fixed income and needed but a few pushes to become a bag person… and it’s not a comfortable place to be in .
I think that the American people view the bonuses exactly right. They may be small change compared to what is going on with other numbers. HOWEVER, you do not reward failure in America with tax payers dollars. It is inherantly un-American.
It is simply the straw that broke the Camel’s back.
I don’t blame people for being mad about the bonuses.
But they should be even angrier that we are throwing billions of dollars more down a shithole.
That money ain’t coming back
yes I agree.. but that part they do not understand and Obama adoring media theyget their news from is not explaining it to them….mostly because that segment of the media is rather a lot of dim bulbs too.
We do reward failure. Bush was given two terms to drive this nation into a Third World country.
oh but I think he stole the first and Kerry threw the secound one to him. People saw no good reason to change horses mid stream.
In addition, we only pay the president 400k…. not much of a bonus to be the leader of the free world.
His reward/punishment will come at the hands of history and the American people know that I think.
Another failure of Bush policy: we now have to go full force into Afghanistan as Al Qaeda is back in full force. That “legacy” he was so obsessed with will live long after we are all gone.
Look at the bright side – the Obots are younger than we are, so they will still be repaying the Obama bailout long after we are gone too.
LOL!
If only that were true.
My children were not Obots and I don’t want to wish them the agony that the true Obots are wishing on the babyboomers.
The Obots came from every demographic, and what ties them together is the same thing we know about Obama…empty suit, inexperienced, interested only in himself dunce.
One thing to mention regarding the CDO’s. There were sold in tranches and it is correct there was AAA tranche, however, the whole structure was not rated AAA. There were also lower rated tranches (4-6) which would absorb the first hit when somebody would not pay. That’s were the real juice (and risk) was for investors. As lower tranches would absorb hits first that’s why there could be a AAA tranche. Obviously, the models behind figuring out the risk of default for these tranches rely heavily on assumptions which were way too optimistic.
Also selling a CDS without paying money upfront was not the problem. Selling a CDS is selling insurance for the risk that somebody defaults. The buyer of insurance would pay you – the CDS buyer is paying a fee to AIG. The problem was that AIG sold too many insurances, taking advantage of its own high credit rating, without having the ability to absorb a turn off the market.
Here is a WTF moment. This morning’s headline:
Obama seeks input of bank CEOs on recovery plans
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-seeks-input-of-bank-apf-14762439.html
btw – re: the bonuses: I think they were purposely latched onto, once the public found out, to distract people from the real issue, that being, why did we give them the billions in the first place.
Oh yes, because asking the fox to build a safer chicken coop clearly is the way of doing things in Washington.
Pfffft.
I said this on an earlier thread but I’ve heard that they’ve been in and out of the white house a lot recently but it’s never made the news. This reminds me of those meetings Cheney used to have with the Oil and Gas CEOs. They’d go behind close doors and the next thing you know, EXXON MOBILE makes record profits and i can’t afford to fill up my car any more.
There’s a term for this. It’s called COLLUSION. It’s illegal, except in the White House, I guess.
That is exactly what it reminded me of – the oil companies meeting with Cheney……..
I was also kind of shocked to see that this is not the first meeting because I scour the news – as do we all.
“The president was set to take the temperature of the bank CEOs on Friday at the White House. The session will be the latest in a series of such meetings Obama has had with financial industry representatives and business executives since taking office amid the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.”
Barry didn’t have time to ever take a meeting with the Senate committee on Afghanistan he supposedly chaired…but he does have time to take several meetings with the bankers?
I predict the food cat will include Kobe beef, lobster and the US taxpayer….. Au jus
RD called my attention yesterday to a very interesting article to be publish in the next Atlantic, The quite coup
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
That say it all specially in the light of the meeting today with the bankers.
When TF is the “Obama seeks input of bank customers” meeting? The “seeks input of truck drivers” and the “input of nursing assistants” meetings?
Why there is even a single Obot left, I have no idea. Who owns Obama is shamelessly obvious.
Exactly!
I would like him to seek the input of the few young people who GET that they are going to be indentured servants for the rest of their damn lives thanks to our “democratic” decision to trade their futures away to the banks.
Undoubtedly, Obama was left with the mess created by Bush over the last 8 years. How he handles many of these issues is the test. Bush was the worst president ever and we are stuck with his policies for a long while.
But I will never forgive Bush, his apologists, and those who rubber stamped his fecklessness. We can hold Obama up to the light but Bush is most responsible for the problems facing us today.
So far, I am unimpressed. You can hardly wrap your head around the numbers being thrown out by way of bail out.
I really blame Congress the most of all for not doing their job and for voting everything through.
The answer to a Bush Presidency is a Clinton Presidency, but the Upper Crust said hey no, I’m not finshed screwing the little guy yet. Big mistake
One of Hillary’s best lines of the campaign was “it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush”. Who will clean up after Obama? I guess the same rule applies, as Obama is Bush III.
Nah, I don’t buy that this is Bush’s fault. This is happening on Obama’s watch; Obama’s responsible. He had plenty of transition time to prepare. And he didn’t need all that boring experience of a boring oooolder person, so he said. I’ll side with Krugman; everything Obama’s doing is either (a) not enough or (b) making things worse.
Bush and Obama are a seamless whole to me…it’s the same people using different front men
PD: Hammer. Nail. Bang!
I thought differently as little as a year ago.
I only assumed that the overpaid operatives of the Corporate Holodeck Media were leading cheers for Obama because they were working for the Elephascists [aka GOP] as usual, and so they were trying to trick Democratic voters into choosing the weaker of the two Democratic candidates left standing. Then, when Plastic Jesus was nominated and it was too late for the Dems to correct the mistake, the media weasels would turn on PJ and start tearing him down in favor of their old BBQ buddy, McCain.
Instead, the media weasels stuck with Obama and tore down McCain. I realized this could only mean that this time, a preponderance of our masters in the corporate elite actually WANTED the Democrat this time–which could only mean they knew they had his pecker in their pocket, to borrow an earthy saying from LBJ. An Elephascist prez would have had a harder time getting away with this bailout, and no Elephascist prez could get away with giving the financial hyenas their Holy Grail–the Social Security funds, which, make no mistake, they’ll go after as soon as they think they can get away with it.
Poor Oborg–they wanted a pony, they got a Trojan Horse.
Help! I seem to have landed in Spammy for some obscure reason.
Obama to appear Sunday on Face the Nation.
He should face the music instead.
I vote for the Jaws theme.
I can’t decide whether BO is chicken sh!t afraid to do the right thing, is incredibly ignorant or simply nefarious. The end result seems to be the same.
There is definitely criminal activity involved – and I would call some of it treason.
Well, thank god he doesn’t have any pressing work to do instead.
No kidding….did he do this much interview time during the election? I don’t remember him being so willing to sit down and talk to these people.
I would love to see someone surprise him with an audience of people who lost their homes.
He should face a few unemployed folks with pitchforks.
In an interview on 3/19:
“James Galbraith: We need a correct assessment of the degree of losses suffered by a bank which is functionally insolvent. But as long as the old management is in place, there are no incentives to cooperate in the evaluation you need to make. That’s the first problem.
The second problem is: When a bank is insolvent, the incentives for normal banking practice disappear. They become perverse. The incumbent management has good reason to gamble excessively and to make capital losses. This is because it appears that the regulators could soon close down the bank.
Beyond that, if the situation for the bank is truly hopeless or if the management is truly corrupt, then the incentive is to loot the institution, to take as much money out of it — e.g. in the shape of bonuses and dividends — before the true state of the books is discovered.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,614297,00.html
I understood that the banks are using their cooperation in the stress tests in exchange for more favors/bailouts/plans.
The stress tests are bogus. You cannot ascertain the true market value of something by bribing the bidders to bid high. It’s poppycock.
Don’t just blame Bush. Who was it that made certain that the Democrats candidate would be Barack Obama? Where were those millions he was able to raise each month during the primaries really coming from? Why were these giant megloconglomerate media empires promoting him so heavily? Had we ever seen media empires promoting a candidate of their choosing? It all stinks to high heaven. In Florida, when we had huge losses from the hurricanes a few years ago, it became obvious that our insurance companies were unable to cover the claims for damage. The state had to give them the money while they wrote huge checks for damage that did not exist. We realized that those companies were no longer in the insurance business but had all invested in real estate. We are still paying to prop up those companies. We have fees attached to every utility bill, our property taxes, etc, all going to the insurance pool to give to the same insurance companies that now refuse to write coverage for us. Many have pulled out of the state but are still receiving our tax dollars to cover their losses. It makes you wonder why you have insurance at all.
I stay up half the night working on an econ post and Dakinikat doesn’t even make a comment.
{{sniff}}
I just read a comment by Dakinikat upthread. It’s nested, though, so you probably didn’t read it.
Well, I was off teaching my classes (the 8 and 9 am ones). So, many eyes to glaze, so few hours to do so.
I was wondering if you were trying to take my job or just give me a hard time? You tell the world my posts make you go veggie and then you want me to make nice? I’ll have my lawyer get back to you.
ROFLOL!
{{sniff}}
tears of a clown…
I have been waiting to say that
Aren’t you up half the night anyhow?
The whole CDS thing strikes me as stupid on its face. They’re meant to cover the investor’s ass if/when the housing bubble bursts and a huge chunk of the mortgage debt all goes south at once, right? But in those circumstances, every investor who bought the crappy CDOs would be in trouble and clamoring for a payoff at the same time. Even if AIG had better reserves than it does, they’d be slammed with people demanding money. They’d be hurting badly, possibly enough to go bankrupt from the demand, even if they’d been more responsible in their offerings. Didn’t anyone buying insurance from them think of that, and try to find out just how much AIG was capable of paying out if the worst happened?
It’s like millions of people buying meteor insurance on their houses from Allstate. If the meteor hits, triggering a new Ice Age, does anyone think Allstate’s really going to have the money to pay off every homeowner in the northern half of the US once their houses are under a glacier?
Nadai,
nobody thought that the scenario we are going thru would actually materialize. Part of the ‘sell point’ of CDOs was that they include different assets and they would not be perfectly correlated. Well, the models were too optimistic.
Secondly, buyers of CDS were considering that they could build up a lot of exposure towards AIG. That’s why the CDS contracts included calls for collateral when the value of the contracts goes up above a certain threshold or the credit quality of AIG goes down (this documentation is often used). That’s what happened last year when all of sudden AIG needed to post collateral under these contracts and need to be rescued as it did not have the resources to post collateral. Note posting collateral is not the same as paying out under the insurance, it is just limiting the credit risk the counterparty has towards AIG. If the CDS contract matures without AIG needing to make a payment for an insurance case, the money will go back to AIG.
There’s actually some really good reasons for these types of things. It’s called hedging. It’s useful under certain circumstances like if you’re a farmer, you plant in the spring, you incur certain costs expecting to get X amount for your crop in the fall. But if the market moves against you, you can’t get X amount, you still have to sell the crop at a loss and then you’re basically screwed by then. By entering into a hedged contract, you lock in your expected amount X so you manage the risk that price X changes. Some speculators on the other side are going to be bet that X is going to be higher, Some are going to bet that X is going to be lower. One of those folks is going to loose money, but the Farmer,in either case will always secure X because of the hedge.
There are other businesses like making loans, where X is the interest rate instead of the price of a crop, or selling and buying things with different currencies where X is the exchange rate between the currencies. Hedging using derivatives helps real business manage downside risk.
The problem is that this market should’ve been managed and standardized and because of folks like the Grahams, it wasn’t and it got out of hand because the speculators got out of hand. We need regulations and rules over markets like these but we don’t need to ban them because they do serve good purpose.
Correct-derivatives can help to reduce risk.
It is like matches – depending on what you do with them they might be harmful or a good thing.
The thing I don’t get, though, is it seems to me like everyone’s placing the same bet – everyone’s buying insurance against the possibility that the ball will land on black seven. Which works fine, for the insurer at least, as long as the ball lands somewhere else. But as soon as black seven comes up, the AIG Casino has got to come up with a metric sh!tload of cash, cash they obviously don’t have.
I mean, the high rated tranches were sold on the assumption that the lower rated tranches were taking virtually all of the risk and that it’d take a massive economic meltdown for the risk to reach the AAA rated. So if there’s no meltdown, the need for the CDS insurance isn’t zero, but it’s low. The insurance is really needed mostly for the worst case scenarios.
Where I have problems is that if the worst happens, and the CDOs plunge in value, they’re all plunging at once because the plunge is largely due to a single cause. It isn’t like, say, housing insurance. When you buy fire insurance on your house and you have a fire, you expect the insurance company to be able to pay up because the money they lose paying you for your loss is made up by other luckier people who also bought fire insurance and didn’t have a fire. But if a million people suddenly have fires all at once, the insurance company would have a problem. It’s only because each fire usually has an independent cause that that scenario doesn’t come to pass. On the rare occasion where a natural disaster causes a massive amount of damage, some insurers *have* gone broke.
What I’m not understanding is why anyone bought insurance with AIG without figuring out if AIG could cover the worst case scenario that the insurance is most useful for.
well, under ‘normal’ circumstances there will be people betting on both sides. there were a lot of hedge funds that bet this was going to blow up and bet it would all go down, that’s why folks like George Soros are having a ‘good’ crisis. There actually was a Saturday Night Live sketch to that effect. It’s just a lot of dummies voted it would go on forever because they were winning on that bet for awhile. The problem is, certain types of institutions that were linked through holding company ownership to some with fiduciary responsibilities got way too much money in the speculation and side bets.
When I worked back in the S&L industry we started hedging with GNMA futures, but there were strict regulations that we could only hedge and NEVER speculate because we had fiduciary responsibilities to depositors. Investment banks could speculate and they put huge lines of money into it and basically bet the entire company on it. Again, complete lack of regulation, oversight, and rules to stop them from doing these huge amounts.
When casinos “hedge” on sports they lay the odds so that people bet on both sides of a game.
On a straight up bet you bet 11 to win 10, so that whichever side wins collects 10 (plus their bet) and the house keeps 1 for holding the bet.
AIG acted like a bookie who thought the outcome was fixed and only took bets from one side.
They would have been okay except it was the wrong side.
exactly myiq… and raters like Moody’s are supposed to identify the risk level (odds of default) with the letter system. The payouts are different on AAAs than unrated things. AAA’s are supposed to be long a sure thing.
A lot of the problem is this entire thing was the failure of the raters to properly access the odds. They make their money based on the sellers of the schlock giving them fees. There’s a good conflict of interest shouting at you. But, again, what they do is lay out the odds on the bet.
I see – I didn’t realize there *were* people betting the other way. Thanks!
I love the 8am bit from Lewis. My econ 101 class was at 8am. What’s with that schedule? And us math majors were used to classes starting at noon. Jeez.
My favorite thing from econ: if the gnp is based on two people each having one product, but they like each others product better than their own and so each sells theirs to the other for more than previously thought worth, the gnp goes up. And that’s without anything being made. That is, it’s social science that’s all based on what’s in peoples heads. Serious voodoo man.
I did find that smoking weed made it all better.
I don’t like teaching econ at 8 am either, but unfortunately, a lot of the administrators that schedule classes don’t listen to students or teachers, they just schedule the rooms based on availability and demand.
based on supply and demand – would that not lead to optimal allocation? mmmh I guess economics are way more complicated!!
myiq, please add this Dilbert to your post. I think it succinctly explains the math:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-12-13/
Funny….” it’s called math “… That Math again .It reminds me of when Obama’s supposed inevitability was explained by ” the rules” and ” the math “
Yes, me too. And the banker “math” makes about as much sense as the Obots’ “the math.”
Sorry this is OT from an important topic – but – I missed the previous thread because I wanted to do some research before opening my mouth and commenting on my favorite blog.
However, when I came back and read the comments on the cartoon I was very disturbed. First, no one commented on the fact that these type of cartoons were all over in early thirties Germany, years before the actual holocaust. They served very slowly to stir up hatred against Jews.
Then I wondered why of all the millions of comments on the Internet you would choose the one you did from Hot Air, myiq, obviously written by an ignorant hateful bigoted person. Actually, there’s no way to know who wrote it. Could be any kind of tr*ll, too, trying to incite people, and succeeding. It worked here. That’s very sad, but also very terrifying. Shows how easy it is to stir hatred of Jews.
I hope that the people I’ve come to respect here will take time to do some research on the reality of Israel, read something from the side of people who live there, and think about the results of what they are saying.
Calling anti-Obama people racist is nothing like calling anti-Jewish cartoons or comments anti-Semitic. (And if that word isn’t entirely accurate let’s call it what it really is – anti-Jewish).
BTW, I’m in moderation for my comment on previous blog. And, I suggest going to NQ and reading some of the thoughtful comments there on the cartoon.
Speaktruth,
Here is a copy of one of my two responses I left for you on the previous thread.
Speaktruth wrote:
“Actually, in Israel there’s a full gamut of opinions, from right to left, pro-aggression to pacifism. Jews love to disagree and argue over ideas. The Israeli parliament is no exception. Their system is much more democratic than ours, with many parties representing a large range of opinions, and with new elections average every 22 months. When there is injustice, Israelis are the first to rebel. That doesn’t mean that the official policies are always correct.”
__________________________
I think the problem some people are having is that it is OK for Israelis and American Jews to criticize the Israeli government, but the rest of us must keep completely quiet and never criticize anything Israel does or risk being characterized as anti-semitic.
Since our tax money goes to support Israel, some non Jewish Americans think they have a right to an opinion on this situation.
Second response to Speaktruth from previous thread:
Actually people continue to read these threads days, weeks, and months after they are no longer active. Some people even comment long after the fact. A lot of our earliest posts still get page views. Amazing, isn’t it?
Anti-semitism wasn’t invented by the Nazis, it has a long history throughout Europe. It wasn’t caused by cartoons either.
FYI:
I picked three comments from the few I read at Hot Air.
Dakinat (and anyone else, for that matter) – How is any of this NOT a ponzi scheme. What’s the difference between a ponzi scheme and the derivatives that were placing bets in someone’s bet.
Are we talking apples and oranges?
elixir, on March 27th, 2009 at 10:53 am Said:
…. How is any of this NOT a ponzi scheme…
IMO, it is a ponzi scheme. Any venture that needs ever more infusions of new cash, just to keep going is a ponzi scheme. But thanks to the media and our elected officials , this ponzi gig isn’t completely up yet., so they won’t use that term of course.
However in awhile when the gig is finally up, we , the little people, will be dressed down by the media and told we should have known these bails-out were fraudulent . All they know is sequels
IMO, it is a ponzi scheme. Any venture that needs ever more infusions of new cash, just to keep going is a ponzi scheme.
I would agree with that definition, but add another characteristic: If the venture needs more and more infusions of cash, AND the “product” they are selling is not a genuine good or service by any stretch of the imagination, then it is a ponzi scheme extraordinaire.
because it’s based on a real promise to pay or not pay depending on the situation and it’s got a contract that’s enforceable in a court of law that will get you the money. That’s why it takes any army of lawyers to write a CDO. They’re enforceable contracts and you have to deliver. Ponzi schemes are developed without the intention of ever having to deliver.
oh, and that’s one of the reasons that taxpayers are paying it back … it’s being paid back. Also, each contract is based on one deal and doesn’t require you to get money from someone else so you’re not funding the old promise with money from some other person.
We should have let AIG go bankrupt and then decided on a case-by-case basis which of its creditors to bailout (focusing on pension funds and telling the filthy rich to take a hike)
well, the problem is that the pensions were on the wrong side of the bet and that’s what we’re basically paying for, folks like soros and other hedge funds were on the right side
Well, it is not a Ponzi scheme which will only work when you take new money to pay back your old investors.
Selling CDS (for which you receive a fee) is not a problem, as long as you correctly assess the risks and are compensated for it. The problems were: 1)Some people did not envisage the melt-down we are in (let”s face it there are plenty of Americans who thought buy now, pay later was part of the American lifestyle). 2) Some people who knew it would not work out, but made money in the markets as long as they could. 3) No regulatory oversight which allowed mushrooming of the CDS with no proper capital allocation.
oops, didn’t read this before i posted this evening! Better explanation than mine too!
Great article. If you Digg, don’t forget to Digg it here:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Bankers_Mathmagical_Formulas_The_House_Always_Wins
Good photos of the top ten hedge fund managers and bios from the Independent UK:
http://tinyurl.com/cj5vqh
Oh -and we all know what Nixon said about speculators -that since speculators thrive on crises, they also create them.
Oh -and we all know what Nixon said about speculators -that since speculators thrive on crises, they also create them.
SOROS
I wish I had plenty of money right now, there are great bargains to be had in real estate.
The guys buying them are people like Soros.
my posts have disappeared (not even in moderation…)
I have been lurking instead of posting for a while. Mainly because I don’t share the anger at an “upper class” that has been written about for a while.
I don’t believe in class warfare. My grandmother was a house maid, my mother a factory worker and I was the first to go to college, a state teachers college where I worked as a motel maid in the summers and took out loans to pay my way. My family spent alot of time on what we now call welfare. I don’t believe they got money, but we got what they referred to as surplus food.
There have always been and will always be people who are way better off than I. I do not begrudge anyone making millions of dollars. I don’t hate them, I don’t even envy them. As long as I know that I and my family are treated fairly and have an opportunity for each generation to succeed is all I really care about.
So I don’t care much about the discussion on bonuses. What I do care about is someone gaming the system for their own benefit and to the detriment of someone else. This applies to welfare cheats, doctors who abuse Medicare, bankers and executives who play sleight of hand with my family’s money, and Obama who hurt us all by stealing the election.
And I do care that we are all being gamed by the Obama administration in a three card monte deal. While they are fanning the flames of populist anger at “fat cats”, the pea was moved. Little if any outcry against mandatory service, escalating Afghanistan, mega budget, earmarks, faith based initiatives, the threat of takeover of private industry. Because we are
all railing against those minority of execs who gamed the system.
MBA’s are not the enemy. Twenty somethings don’t go to graduate school to screw the American public. Neither do the fact that some are Greeks have anything to do with anything.
People gaming the system, rarely the system itself, is the problem.
I don’t hate people on Wall Street. I hate and abhor the actions of some individuals who have hurt this country and its citizens.
This is my opinion. And I’m not humble about it.
Hey I agree with you. I don’t begrudge others having more. I begrudge it when they screw me in order to have more . As a class, that’s what the upper crust is doing right now, whether they went to school or not to do so…..and really it’s a very small portion of the upper crust at that
It’s end of empire time and now that the globalization and housing frauds are though , the only bubble game in town right now is the bailout fraud and therefore, the screwing the American public. IMO
People gaming the system, rarely the system itself, is the problem.
Certainly. But at this moment the people running the system , are gaming the system, to the point where they are destroying the system. It’s to the point where it’s hard to tell if that’s indeed what they have in mind.
can someone get me out of moderation???
&$#%^@@@$&!!!!
Somebody please stop me before I smash my computer in 1000 peaces and then gauge my own eyeballs out!
The Great Sage Alan Greenspan pens a piece in the FT:
We need a better cushion against risk
Here’s my first reaction after reading such wisdom coming from Alan Einstein… Err I mean Alan Greenspan:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He started by saying the risk-management philosophy has been excellent so far. Somebody please tell him that we had none and it was people like him who were advocating the (the Rightwing crackpot-)philosophy that the market regulates itself and we should get out of the way.
This just reminded me of something Paul Krugman once wrote: Greenspan is like the guy who lets the barn open and once the horses are out, he goes around and gives (well payed) speeches about the importance of keeping the barn door shut.
Have you ever asked yourself if you should laugh or cry? Just keep on reading. You’ll find passages like this:
And like this:
Blow he dabs into some truisms and then
This clearly means we have become prisoners of the “To-Big-To-Fail” banks but no, don’t break them. That’s probably why Geithner and Obama (or is it Paulson and Bush) are keeping them that way.
Here another piece of brilliance.
Yeah, and I say when water congeals into the solid state, it’s cold. Where does this guy do his shopping? At Truisms ‘R Us? Sheesh!
This guy is giving me a headache.
Gah. Shorter Alan Greenjeans: We left a bunch of incestuous wankers to police themselves, and are SHOCKED to discover they’ve been circle-jerking each other.
BTW, has anyone heard a single solitary soul on Capitol Hill raise a stink about anti-trust laws that we ALREADY HAVE maybe being applied to these financial institutions? Since Adam Smith is their deity, anyone quoting what he had to say about monopolies being the antithesis of a free market?
Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
But, under crisis pressure, it too failed
C’mon-the pressure came from too many millions being made by those with the wherewithal to game the system.
Did you notice that Greenspan is on the board of John Paulson’s hedge fund which made 2 billion last year-despite the econ collapse engendering “widespread misery”.
John Paulson is widely known for cashing in on the fall on banking shares in the past year. The fund he founded in 1994 has made more than £300m shorting shares in banks such as Lloyds and can boast the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan on its advisory board.
http://tinyurl.com/d2hyqj
“In any event, we need not rush to reform.”
That line is a kicker (and I’m sure he feels we don’t need to hold anyone accountable either).
I might find his arguments easier to swallow if we hadn’t learned these lessons in the past (didn’t we have a problem with a real estate bubble and the S&L’s a couple of decades ago, haven’t we had problems with faulty risk management/reserves, out right fraud and collusion before).
Ali G mmmh Alan G just cracks you up! You’d think that he would go into a cave and hide, but lecturing the world – what a joke. He is way too overrated!
Ramon noodles anyone?
lol! On the food network, there’s a show called” Diners, Drive-ins and Dives. . We see a future show called ” Diners, Dumpsters and Dives.
Unfortunately, that is beginning to become a sad reality in some communities. I volunteer at a local food pantry here in Chicago and our pantry is bare!
There was a clip on the news the other night showing people dumpster diving at a McDonalds. Now, this has always been the case with McDonalds but what is alarming is WHO is diving for throw-away burgers.
A friend and I go every 6 months or so to thrift shops to donate items from around the house. For years we often would have to beg them to take good stuff, one time going to 3 different places. But now we get the red carpet treatment as they snatch the boxes ….. another sign of the times
MyIQ, I just sent you a couple of email messages….
Part of the problem is the people making the loans were pressured to make them and had no accountablility when they went bad.
If your local bank makes too many bad loans it has to stop loaning cuz it’s out of cash.
But the companies making the loans weren’t using their own money, they were selling then off to other banks, sometimes across the country. Those banks would often trade or sell the loans too, so that by the time the loan went bad the loan salesman was off the hook (assuming they were still employed by the loan sales company and it was still in business)
I’m no expert and I remember reading for years everyone one knew it was a fraudulent bubble …it was a matter of when, not if, it went Boom.
Surprise! The when happened just before a presidential election ….who would have thunk it?
Well, MIQ2XU — here is his face.
Guess he has to live with it, no?
http://dailybail.com/home/2009/3/4/bailout-aig-joseph-j-cassano-is-an-irresponsible-asswipe-who.html
The difference between this and the 1920′s?
They have no remorse, I guess.
A father and son having a discussion……………:
Son:
Dad, My friend was arrested for stealing 25 dollars from his works cash register, (He never discusses why his friend ganked the cash.) and now he may do 6-30 years for robbery. Why is it that he goes to jail for 6-30 yrs and these Bankers go scott free?”
Dad:
“little man. Have I taught you nothing? If you want to steal money…get an MBA.”
Become a Senator maybe even the President. But most important of all….Become a banker!”
This all makes it very clear, these bankers and investors and insurance people will be as slimy as they’re allowed to get away with being. It’s sad but there it is. So the real problem isn’t that the snakes acted like snakes, the real problem is that the people who were charged with monitoring and policing the snakes didn’t. Or worse, were snakes themselves. They and the people who appointed them are to blame. And that goes for this latest thing about the bonuses: I don’t blame the AIG snakes, I blame Obama, heckofajob Timmy, and Dodd. They did what they did on purpose most likely as part of paying back the people that own them.
Problem is that pension funds, insurance funds, 401ks, other long term savings accounts also bought these CDOs and CDSs. We were led there by duped institutional money managers, the lowest on the rung. These funds, which include a lot of our money (not mine), are now among the creditors waiting in line to be paid as promised by the banks, through bailout or bankruptcy. Full redemptions on CDSs appear unlikely, but how about the underlying low value CDOs. It’s as if the retirement savings of a lot of people (those too young to count on social security) were used to buy credit today, housing, cars, cards, etc. Risking our future to pay for the present. Some ways, like a reverse mortgage. It’s about the bankers, some of whom should be locked up, but the society at large was party to the system, perhaps unwittingly but not involuntarily. It’s important to get that, even in the midst of our anger and protest. Taibbi’s piece is the kind of sniffing journalism that we sorely miss these days. But he is not willing to ascribe responsibility to anyone but the bankers. That’s ok, he’s still young.
Exactly, these types of FI’s shouldn’t be buying speculative vehicles, but the problem is that the investment bankers paid the agencies to rate this trash AAA.
We still haven’t corrected the issues with RATERS and the fact that it’s the sellers that pay for the rating. It’s not a consumer protection function at all. We need major overhaul of raters look moodys, etc.
I doubt a big overhaul of the agencies will be easy – how will you regulate opinion? Probably will end up like what Elliot S did to research on Wall Street. After the regulation, significantly less was around, never mind anything good. Admittedly before a lot of sh%%T was around but also good stuff and the job of the investor was to figure that out -wasn’t that hard. Now there is just so little around to choose from.
Problem of the last years was that everybody was on Kool-Aid. Bankers, investors, regulators, and the ordinary people who thought rising housing and equity prices were just great – no complains here. Not quite sure where all these vigilant journalists were when Alan G explained what was needed for the economy.
Well, hindsight is marvelous!
WHY DOESN’T THIS SITE, THAT WAS SUCH A STRONG SUPPORTER OF HILLARY THROUGH THINK AND THIN, HAVE LITTLE OR NO NEWS ABOUT HER AS SOS? WHY IS THIS SITE SO OBSESSED WITH EVERYTHING OBAMA DOES AND DOES NOT DO? THERE IS MORE IN THIS WORLD THAN OBAMA AND HIS POOR PERFORMANCE.
I apologize for shouting. It just came over me.
become an author and write about her
that’s my suggestion
IF WE WROTE ABOUT HER ALL THE TIME SOMEONE WOULD COMPLAIN THAT WE WERE IGNORING THE CLUSTERF**K IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
I think currently this site is a wee bit obsessed abt evil bankers.
I wouldn’t mind seeing articles following her at all. She has been quite busy and many of the meetings and policy efforts have been news and worth of extensive analysis. Feel free of course.
We are a political blog. We always were. Obama is the President–the most powerful individual in our country. Everything he does affects our lives. I see our role as holding his feet to the fire. However, RD still frequently talks about Hillary and highlights things she is doing. Other writers could do so if they wanted to. Right now the domestic situation is a lot more urgent than foreign policy. That could change.
Ponzi sheme in the art world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/26/lawrence-salander-art-fraud-new-york
Ah, the speculative art market. Will be sure to read the Guardian piece when I get home. The financial challenge with art is that the only collateral is taste and reputation. When a painting stops being worth more, it’s not worth much. Appreciation should only be in eye of the beholder, I say.
[...] then, I found out a few more details about people who get more say so than homeowners So basically AIG bet money it didn’t have and lost, and all the bailout money we gave it (and any [...]