« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Derivatives and human hubris.

Learning of the kinds of exotic instruments used by Wall Street in the years before the crash can be a mind-boggling experience. First, of course, because of the complexity of these things; but also because of the staggering sums of “paper wealth” they produced. AIG and other firms sold credit default swaps in such massive numbers that there was at one point insurance on over $60 trillion in credit. In other words, they wrote so many CDS contracts that on paper they were insuring a credit market that exceeded, several times over, the GDP of the whole country. Try to wrap your mind around that.

Now they did this because each one of those swaps generated a steady revenue stream. Let’s say I hold a mass of Lehman Brothers corporate bonds, and I start to get wind the Lehman Brothers may not be in the best shape. So I call the AIG Financial Products office in London and place an order for swaps protecting $10 million in Lehman debt. For this I agree to pay AIG, say, 150 grand in premiums every year for five years. I feel good because my Lehman debt is now insured. AIG feels good because they have another revenue stream — my yearly premiums. Of course, I don’t even have to actually hold any Lehman debt to buy the swaps. Maybe I just think Lehman’s in deep trouble, and suspect that there could be a nice profit to turn if the poor company defaults. The CDS become a speculative instrument for me.

Nor is that all. Turns out you can purchase swaps on almost anything. Not just on companies, but on countries’ sovereign debt (CDS on Icelandic debt soared in the days before its banks failed), on municipal bonds (CDS for cities and states is soaring right now, making their budgetary issues even more severe), on basically any kind of debt instrument imaginable.

Today Bloomberg is reporting on various American local and state governments battered by their exposure to interest-rate swaps. The article contains an amusingly deadpan judgment on the matter: these governments, we read, “failed to comprehend the extent of the risks involved.”

You might think only local government bureaucrats could be so short-sighted. Hardly. The New York Times reported in its useful if flawed “Reckoning” series that Citibank had a mass of subprime mortgages bundled into CDOs. According to the Times, Citibank’s risk assessment on these CDOs “never accounted for the possibility of a national housing downturn.” Ponder that for a moment.

Nor is that all. Remember that credit default swaps are desirable because they generate steady revenue streams. And one thing we have learned in all this mess is that where there’s a revenue stream, Wall Street will devise a security. Sure enough, some hotshot operators were busy converting revenue from credit default swaps into CDOs. They securitized the revenue streams on derivatives.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal ran a really extraordinary report on how a little town in Australia, by investing in pools of corporate CDS, is coming to grief as the recession triggers the obligations in the event of default. In this case the instrument is the synthetic collateralized debt obligations (as if there were some tangible or “organic” version out there), which is an outlandish security composed of the payments from hundreds of CDS contracts.

Nor is that all. I have even heard (but not properly confirmed) that AIG was selling CDS on its own debt instruments, on the CDOs it created. In short, it was selling contracts to insure counterparties in the event of a default on its own obligations. The only thing stupider in than that is the idea that someone out there actually purchased this paper.

So the smart people knew there were technical obligations out there of unimaginable size, all interlocking in a web of abstract engineering, but they just pretended that the kind of default events that would trigger these obligations were essentially impossible. And then they went out and marketed it to local officials and bureaucrats.

Months ago when some neophyte would point out that $60 trillion market in credit derivatives may not be the healthiest way to hedge default risk, he’d get some remark about “mere paper wealth.” Not to worry. Lehman Brothers will never fail. They’ve been on Wall Street since before the Civil War for Pete’s sake!

Except Lehman did fail, and the combustion of all this notional paper threatened spectacular detonations all over the world, of sufficient magnitude to bring down the whole financial system. I have it on good authority that when Paulson and Bernanke got a good look inside AIG in mid-September they literally turned white. That 300-man Financial Products office in London, once astoundingly profitable with its business in exotic derivatives, eventually racked up losses roughly equivalent to the entire 2009 budget of the state of Georgia.

And now, thanks in part to all this high finance engineering, every time I pull out my Citibank credit card to buy my morning coffee and egg sandwich, I get to be reminded that this lovely institution is now for all intents and purposes a nationalized bank, and that all the staggering myopia of these hotshots, combined with the Too Big to Fail doctrine, means that my country has been forced to embrace more ruinous socialism in the last three months than in the previous half century.

[NB: Undoubtedly my description of these instruments lacks precision, and it very likely that I have some of the technical details quite wrong. Perhaps Blackhedd will politely correct me. But I do believe I’ve conveyed the general concepts accurately. Let me also note my indebtedness to Blackhedd on all these matters. Without his patience with my questions, I would be lost.]

COMMENTS

  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    You’re right.

    Thing is, he still is.

    Merry Christmas!

  • streetwise

    Intriguing story on Lehman from the London Times:

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5336179.ece

  • Kowalski

    What I don’t understand is why anyone would feel safe buying a hedge against a global company’s failure in the first place. The entire premise is crazy because so many of them cook the books. People buy hedges against that but it’s like buying a condom to protect yourself from a gunshot wound.

  • olsmithie

    in transactions, much of the fancy foot work described above could not have happened. I am not speaking of massive government regulations on different types of transactions, other than they be forced to tell the truth.

    When the financiers screw other people by packaging bad debt knowingly with good debt, then selling it, that is dishonest. Only the feds have the power to prosecute this and seem reluctant to do so.

    GoldmanSachs alum seems to move to the top of the government’s financial hierarchy and we, the people, keep getting the bill for their indiscretions.

    Start with Paulson and go down the list. The government protects GS investments regardless of the costs to the people.

    Which president doesn’t seem to matter. Mexico bailout, Clinton era, major loser without bailout? Goldman Sachs.

    Recently the AIG bailout for 80 B, 20 Billion liability belonged to Goldman Sachs. And you know the rest of the story.

    If I hear one more contributer brag on Geo43, I may puke.
    He protected the country from without, and destroyed it from within. Thank you for the former, as to the latter, “What were you thnking?!”

    He is either incredibly naive,( my pet theory), or incredibly stupid, (or part of the gang), to go along with Paulson’s plan. Either way, we lose. Of course, Paulson saved GS, I suppose that is all that mattered.

    You may never see hedge companies regulated. I understand that Soros makes over a billion a year from such. Reid’s puppet master is certainly not going to let the feds regulate “his” industry.

    Man, I feel better. Don’t read this ’till after the holidays!
    It does not aid digestion.

    Regards

  • DavidSage

    I’ve always embraced free-market economics, but I do think that more strict government regulation on Wall Street wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

    When you start dealing with that many “zeros”, you can really create a a lot of collateral damage to innocent bystanders if things go south, as we have seen.

    With smaller transactions, the damage is usually limited to the parties involved, so less regulation makes sense. When you start talking about billions, or even trillions of dollars, that really becomes a public welfare issue.

    Banks should have much stricter limits regarding their leverage ratios. I’m amazed the government never stepped in on this issue. I think a lot of pain could have been avoided had their been some common sense limits on these ratios.

    We’ve seen that the federal government is not going to let banks fail, despite their foolish policies, so its reasonable to insist that banks should have stricter regulation and accountability, if nothing else, to protect the taxpayer.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    What makes you think government is free of any of the same problems that were on Wall Street?

    Being an AFSCME or NTEU card-carrying bureaucrat doesn’t make a person smarter, less corrupt, or less short-sighted. In fact…

  • Rod_Patrick

    Your suggestion will only work in a government-controlled bank, not a market-driven banking system. Regulations of such kind can only happen in a totalitarian or socialist form of government.

    Putting a limit to leverage ratios (which are indeed key performance parameters) is tantamount to fixing the operation of a bank. You can only do that if you can fully control the unhedged “market risk”. But if you do that, you are technically saying that “banks have not right to fail” and only have the “right to succeed”… which is similar to the blasphemous idea of “bailout”.

    I say NO. Let the poorly performing and poorly managed banks fail. Let the more competent, more honest, and more efficient entities rise in such occasion.

    The role of the government regulation should be in assuring that useful “information” are made as free and available as possible especially to savers and investors alike. Clients of the banks should be provided with the right information in advance to allow them to respond properly with respect to the dynamics of market environment and the internal performance/operations of their respective banks. Savers and investors MUST TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY of protecting their own money/investment by regularly assessing the performance of their respective banks. This is our the current problem. We rely too much to our banks and to the Government to do things in our behalf without considering that the interests of these institutions are totally different from ours (an agency problem).

    On the other hand, if you mean that the purpose of limiting the leverage ratios of the Bank is to avoid RISK, you are wrong. The standard Theory (i.e., verified knowledge based on experience) of Finance (as opposed to George Soros’ version of interpreting the Credit Crisis) says that market RISK/UNCERTAINTY is always present. Those who are able to assume and control the risks are rewarded by the market system and those who don’t lose in the system.

    Finally, the interest rate (roughly, the rate of investment growth) accorded to an investment is proportional to the RISK of the investment. In short, risk in the financial/banking sector is not necessarily evil. It’s an opportunity for savers and investors to create wealth. Some consider it “the equality factor” since everyone (regardless of his/her status) has the equal opportunity to win and to lose.

    Please note that the issue of anti-competitive and fraudulent activities is a totally different animal. Government’s role is to severely punish the wrongdoers and ensure that the penalties collected from them are used to redress the grievances of afflicted parties.

    The path taken by the Government in the last September Credit Crisis has been too “un-American”. President-elect Obama and his minions have promised to continue the same wrong path.

    If no one assumes the risk except the Government, then we are already walking into the path of socialism, because in so doing, we are allowing the Government to make the decisions in our behalf. The most dangerous thing is to give the Government the power to decide who shall win or lose. And that’s beyond the issue of taxpayers’ money.