SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Pitera who wrote (9896)9/4/2008 1:36:46 PM
From: John Pitera  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
***CPDO UPDATE** we always knew these were crap!!!!!!
Moody's May Downgrade CPDOs After Error in New Model (Update2)

By Neil Unmack and John Glover

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Moody's Investors Service said it may cut the ratings of 854 million euros ($1.2 billion) of constant proportion debt obligations after disclosing a second error in the way it assesses the securities.

Moody's review was ``prompted by the identification of a coding error in a model used for monitoring CPDOs,'' the New York-based firm said in a statement today. Moody's will probably downgrade the affected CPDOs by one or two levels, it said. The securities were sold by banks including ABN Amro Holding NV, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Moody's ousted the head of its structured finance unit two months ago, saying employees broke rules by failing to change the way CPDOs were assessed after discovering a fault in its rating model. Moody's awarded the top Aaa ratings to at least $4 billion of the securities, funds backed by credit-default swaps, before they lost as much as 90 percent of their value.

``This highlights the problems that Moody's and the other ratings firms had in modeling structured credit,'' said Jeroen van den Broek, head of investment-grade credit strategy at ING Bank NV in Amsterdam. ``That's why they wound up giving Aaa ratings to deals that should never, ever have received them.''

U.S. and European regulators are tightening rules for Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings after the companies provided top grades to securities backed by U.S. subprime mortgages that triggered more than $500 billion of writedowns and credit losses at Wall Street institutions.

Ratings Review

The latest error ``was modest but material, so that's why we're reviewing the ratings,'' Richard Cantor, chief credit officer at Moody's, said in a telephone interview from New York. A major fault would have led to mistakes in the grades that an analyst would spot immediately, he said.

Moody's is carrying out a review of all its major ratings models and has set up a group of experts to supervise their creation, testing and monitoring, Cantor said. Even so, ``no vetting process will ever eliminate every error,'' he said.

Moody's Corp., the parent of the ratings company, fell as much as 71 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $40.54 and was at $40.57 at 11:50 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange Composite trading. The stock has risen 14 percent this year.

ABN Amro created the first CPDO in 2006, promising investors top-ranked bonds with returns of as much as 2 percentage points above money-market rates.

Moody's is reviewing CPDOs rated between A3, its seventh- highest credit ranking, down to B1, four levels below investment- grade status.

CPDOs sell contracts based on indexes of credit-default swaps, contracts conceived to protect bondholders against default. The contracts pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a company fail to adhere to its debt agreements.

To contact the reporters on this story: Neil Unmack in London nunmack@bloomberg.net; John Glover in London at johnglover@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 4, 2008 12:21 EDT

-----------------
Message 22986612

To: John Pitera who wrote (7437) 11/7/2006 6:14:28 PM
From: John Pitera Read Replies (1) of 9897

Squeezing Into the Latest Derivative Fashions (credit default swaps)

Tuesday, November 7, 2006
A CLASSIC SHORT SQUEEZE is helping to send the cost of corporate credit tumbling.

The squeeze is taking place in the huge but opaque and arcane market for credit derivatives. One genus of the species, credit default swaps, is basically an insurance policy on whether a company won't make good on its debt.

With a credit default swap, an investor can buy protection against the default on a credit, just as a homeowner takes out a flood insurance policy. Or an investor can sell an insurance policy that the credit won't go bust, just as Allstate does on a home, to make a profit.

Investors who buy a CDS are buying the functional equivalent of a put option -- a negative bet -- on the company's credit. As the corporate bond market keeps strengthening, these put options are losing value. And so these investors -- or more accurately, traders -- are scrambling to cover by selling these instruments, just as a short seller who bets on a stock's decline is forced to buy back that stock if it rises, which push the price even higher.

Investors looking to take on credit risk can sell credit protection in the CDS market. Just as put sellers profit in a bull market, sellers of credit protection have made out well.

If all that sounds a bit complicated and convoluted, as they say on late-night infomercials -- Wait, there's more.

CDOs, for their part, also are eminently tradable; far more so, in fact, than corporate bonds, which require a company to be of the mind to issue a bond to the public. A CDO can be created by a derivative dealer to meet the desires of its customer, who can than take a position in that credit in the absence of a bond and without worrying about such nonsense as where interest rates are headed.

CDOs also can be assembled into indexes. The CDX is like the Dow of the credit derivative world, tracking major investment-grade issuers, while the iTraxx is the European equivalent. And, of course, those indices are dandy trading vehicles for anybody (hedge funds, especially) who has an opinion about corporate credit.

And those index products can be reassembled into new structures. The latest and greatest is the Constant Proportion Debt Obligation, or CPDO. Leaving out the details, which are comprehensible only to derivatives professionals, suffice it to say that, with the magic of 15-to-1 leverage, CPDOs provide the marvelous combination of upwards of 200 basis points (two percentage points) over Libor (the London interbank offered rate, the money-market benchmark) for a something deemed a triple-A credit. Real high-grade bonds, when you can find them, trade at only a handful of basis points over governments.

Not surprisingly, CPDOs have caught fire. And that's rippled through the credit derivatives market.

"When CPDOs are priced, index trades are executed," explains Lisa Watkinson, head of Global Structured Credit Business Development at Lehman Brothers. "The leverage in the trades could mean billions need to trade in the CDX and iTraxx indices. The daily volumes in the indices are anywhere from $30-50 billion per day."

"Billions would have to print in the CPDO market to be the sole catalyst behind significant spread tightening," she adds. But Jeffrey A. Rosenberg, credit market strategist at Bank of America, avers that CDS spreads (their margin over risk-free government debt yields) have been driven to record lows by heavy supplies of "synthetic" instruments, including the introduction of CDPOs.

In the process, those who bought credit protection in the CDS market are on the losing side of that game. So, now they're furiously trying to sell protection, like any squeezed short.

Of course, these new-fangled products aren't the sole reason for tight corporate spreads. The economy is growing amid "The Great Moderation," as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has dubbed it, which implies no precipitous downturns. And so risk premiums have been squeezed down, from corporate credit to the stock market, as encapsulated by everybody's favorite fear gauge, the VIX.

One would have to be churlish indeed to wonder about what could go awry in this best of all possible worlds for credit derivatives. Just because mind-numbingly complex structures are traded by the billions in an unregulated market by hedge funds? It's not as if they're natural-gas futures, for goodness sake.

-------------------

Message 22989190

---------------------

Message 22989215

To: John Pitera who wrote (7448) 11/8/2006 11:34:33 AM
From: John Pitera Read Replies (3) of 9897

Ratings Alchemy: Turning "BBB" into "AAA" (the new CPDO Structure)

riskchat.com

From: Lara
Affiliation: Consulting
Address: www_lara@yahoo.co.uk
Date: 29 Sep 2006
Time: 16:33:19

Comments
Has any one looked at the ABN's new "AAA" rated Structured Credit product, the CPDO 10-year note? It basically takes the DJ CDX index and iTRAXX index (made up of average A-BBB rated obligations), leverages it up by about 15 times, and issues it as "AAA" rated FRN (ratings issued by S&P and Moody's). Here are the details: from FinanceAsia.com "ABN AMRO continues to lead credit derivative innovation with its first-ever Constant Proportion Debt Obligation ABN AMRO this week launched its first public constant proportion debt obligation (CPDO). This new form of synthetic credit investment carries a full AAA rating from Standard & Poors on both principal and coupon. It uses elements from both CDO and CPPI technology to produce a new non-principal-protected, fixed-income, credit-investment tool. The CPDO generates returns through exposure to a portfolio of credit default swaps (CDS) which is linked to highly liquid CDS indices. The size of the portfolio is adjusted dynamically so that the CPDO only uses the leverage it needs in order to make the scheduled principal and interest payments. The structure of the CPDO is designed to have a stable rating with a high likelihood of “cashing-in” to a risk-free investment that pays the stated coupon and principal at maturity. "This is the most exciting development in the credit market for several years. The absence of a full rating has made it historically difficult for investors to assess the risks and appropriately place dynamically leveraged credit products into a portfolio. By creating the CPDO with a full rating for the timely payment of both principal and interest we have solved this issue for our institutional investors and broadened the asset choice available to managers of credit portfolios," says Steve Lobb, global head of credit and alternative derivative marketing at ABN AMRO. He adds that the new product allows a wide range of investors who are restricted from investing in unrated securities to access credit instruments that use dynamic leverage for the first time. "

---------------

Message 23074122

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7465) 12/5/2006 6:26:47 PM
From: John Pitera Read Replies (2) of 9897

Hawk, I have to disagree with Georges Assi of Lehman. It's interesting that the CPDO's are structured so that if they have a loss in value due to spreads increasing they then increase the leverage and put on additional spread positions.

I believe a variation of that is what happened to Long Term Capital Management. LTCM was running quite a few active investment strategies but one of the larger positions was short emerging market debt and long US Treasuries. They felt that the spreads were too large by historical standards. But as the spreads expanded the strategy was structured so they increased their leverage and sold more emerging market debt while going long more US debt thus driving the spread relationship more strongly in the direction it was heading.

I'll have to take a look and see if those were the specifics of LTCM in 1998, but the strategy that CPDO's use to obtain the "AAA" rating works because the statistical chance that the CPDO "Blows up and losses all of it's value is low in individual Monte Carlo simulations. The Cummulative risk of several of these blowing up and going through all of their underlying assets may be greater given the way the CPDO's are structured to handle initial losses.

-----------------

a couple of comments I have seen on the CPDO's .....

I asked some folk about this basically, in addition to Chengs comments I got that:

For this correlation desks leverage up when the market widens,(sell protection) but they should deleverage when it tightens (buy protection). Whether this increases/reduces volatility is a different story if you ask me.

Some hedge funbds are buying these things as collateral (hmmmmmm). But it seems its mostly retail cleints that are having a look.

As for the rating...nothing too clear.. it maybes boils down to 'Once the CPDO has achieved sufficient returns to match the present value of its coupon and principal payments, the deal is unwound.'

At which point I had to go and get lunch and the guys telling me this had to go and make more spreadsheets.

My instinct is that if more of these print, as the article suggests, the market will be crushed. Its bad enough without x10 leverage.

But if there is some sort of trigger (of which I have no idea what that could be) there could be a lot of volatility...

-------------
this is from the nuclear phynance site.....

The products are (currently) rated AAA. Im not at all positioned to really know about this so this might be bull, but I heard the product exploits S&P's ratings methodologies (like all structured credit products) which basically runs a monte carlo simulation and if the path of the simulation leads it to a place where there would be any loss whatsoever this counts as a "failed run". S&P then compare the number of failed runs to good runs to determine rating. IE, they do not distinguish between a 1 cents loss at maturity and total wipeout. This product stays alive because if the current coupon return is insufficient to ensure a 200bp coupon then leverage is increased up to a max leverage amount, so there are very few failed runs, but failure means total loss. (The max leverage is fixed in the 7-15x zone, and typically product starts max levered and delevers if it achieves sufficient returns so that current coupon more than covers L+200 by 1.x times, or whatever). If product hits like 10 points of NPV it liquidates, and I think the remaining GAP risk sticks with the issuer....Really pushed the index market tighter, and made the index trade rich... Things will get nasty one day, in x years, with all of this kind of crap out there

nuclearphynance.com

------------------------

fantastic missive that Bill Gross wrote Nov 30th of 2006 on the insane risk appetite and the financial alchemy that had produced CPDO's his note is highly worth reading.

Message 23058323



To: John Pitera who wrote (9896)9/4/2008 3:39:44 PM
From: John Pitera  Respond to of 33421
 
There's a Bull Market Somewhere? Bill Gross Investment outlook

Investment Outlook
Bill Gross | September 2008


Wall Street SAT Exam Question
Louis Rukeyser is to Jim Cramer like:
(A) A healthy head of hair is to bald
(B) Uptown Manhattan is to Brooklyn
(C) The Pony Express is to e-mail
(D) All of the above

OK, if you picked (D), you scored 800 on this part of the exam. Despite their being polar opposites though, I must tell you I was a fan of Lou’s and I’m a fan of Jim’s even if they occupy(d) the investment stage of public opinion with entirely different personalities and a broadband disparity of decibel levels. Rukeyser’s Wall $treet Week was a monologue scripted, spontaneous pun inflicted, Friday night “quipp-ded” diatribe, concluding in part that analysts and portfolio managers would better serve the world by joining the military. Cramerica is a daily light show, a smite-the-idiots show, a battle between the clueless and smart money, with the ultimate conclusion that those who “know nothing…know nothing” would be better off teaching as opposed to doing. Both Rukeyser and Cramer were probably correct and that is why I guess I sort of like(d) them both.

When it comes to Cramer, you may be wondering why one would bother with a late afternoon “lightning round” conclusion to a busy investment day. Well, he’s entertaining, first of all, and I never get tired of the multiple “booyahs!” that listeners come up with. I find, though, that there are more than appetizers on Cramer’s menu. He has the instincts of a money manager (because he was one), but the unequivocating courage of convictions that not many of us have. To take on the Fed in the moment of the market’s deepest despair took guts. It would be like a passenger rushing from the dining room of the Titanic and heading straight for the bridge: “Get your hands off that wheel, Captain, there’s icebergs ahead!” Indeed there were. Yet aside from the entertainment and courage, there’s a commonsensical lesson plan that pops up almost every day. To be sure, the lightning round is intentionally prefab as opposed to lath and plaster, but interspersed and intertwined around all of it are entreaties to diversify and to be aware that markets don’t always go up. ,Rukeyser, in fact, was a perpetual bull. Cramer is a cat with one eye on the mouse hole and the other on a side door that just might usher in a roaring predator. If you can filter the schmaltz from the chicken you just might learn something. That’s what I tell myself, anyway, on many Monday – Friday afternoons. Booyah, Jim!

The reason I bring up Mr. Cramer and his ascension to at least a portion of the investment media throne is to discuss one of his oft-quoted phrases: “Remember, there’s always a bull market somewhere!” In its simplicity that’s hard to dispute. There are always some stocks that go up in bear markets and some bonds as well. The bond market long ago, for instance, split mortgages into what are known as POs and IOs, where you could take your pick between principal repayment or the interest component of the mortgage. One was effectively a bet on yields going down, the other on rates going up. Currencies are probably the purest form of the Cramer thesis because one could easily argue that if the dollar is in a bear market, then there have to be multiple currencies that will be going the other way.

Taken one step further, Jim Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer would surely acknowledge the idiosyncratic movement of individual currencies but argue that they all were deflating versus gold. Voila! Even in Mr. Grant’s world there’s a bull market somewhere.

So the lesson must be to go forth and find the bull market, wherever it is. Almost always – but not now because in a global financial marketplace in the process of delevering, assets that go up in price are rare diamonds as opposed to grains of sand. For the past several months our PIMCO Investment Committee blackboard has continued to display the following lesson plan:

What Happens During Delevering

Risk spreads, liquidity spreads, volatility, term premiums – they all go up.

Delevering slows/stops when assets have been liquidated and/or sufficient capital has been raised to produce an equilibrium.
The raising of sufficient capital now depends on the entrance of new balance sheets. Absent that, prices of almost all assets will go down.

The above might seem simplistic to us at PIMCO but it is not necessarily clear to all readers. Term premiums? Risk spreads? Volatility? What do they have to do with bull or bear markets? Well, what Step 1 really says is that as GSEs, banks, investment banks, global hedge funds and even individual households delever their balance sheets by shedding assets, they lower the prices of not just what they are selling, but other securities that are arbitrageable within the marketplace. The past 12 months, for instance, have focused on subprime and alt-A mortgages and their drastically lowered prices. Stocks of companies that own them are of course marked down, but so are other assets of impeccable quality. Because junk mortgages now in some cases yield 15%, money at the margin is pulled out of the agency mortgage market where implicit guarantees and explicit Treasury promises to provide standby capital lead to bona fide AAA quality ratings. We estimate that the process of delevering has lowered the price on FNMA and FHLMC mortgages by as much as 3-4% and raised the yield on their 30-year fixed paper by as much as 75 basis points.

Similarly, the volatility associated with asset liquidation as well as the observable lack of liquidity adds additional risk spread premia, which in turn lower the price of almost any stock, bond or piece of real estate that you or anyone else owns. In combination, the current delevering has managed to sink all three primary asset classes(House Prices, Stocks & Bonds) in aggregate, as shown in Chart 1. At first, one might wonder why all the fuss. As the chart demonstrates, there have been prior periods when this trio has not done well and the U.S. economy has hardly blinked. However, the current year-over-year decline of over 10% has never really been witnessed since the Great Depression. That, in and of itself, is a potential red flag. Yet a 10% aggregate asset price decline does more than make us all 10% less wealthy. Because many of these assets are leveraged and margined, the more they decline, the more frequent and frenzied the margin calls, and if the additional cash flow is not provided, not only an asset liquidation but a debt liquidation follows. It is the debt liquidation that potentially turns a stagnant/recessionary economy into something much worse. In the housing market for instance, it is one thing to observe a 15% national decline in home prices. It is much more serious however, when margin calls in the form of monthly mortgage payments (many of which are in-creasing due to adjustable or option-related contractual provisions) lead to foreclosures, which in turn cause a debt liquidation. The bank in this case, takes possession of the home and dumps it back on the market, lowering the price even further, which leads to more foreclosures, which leads to….

This rarely observed systematic debt liquidation is what confronts the U.S. and perhaps even the global financial system at the current time. Unchecked, it can turn a campfire into a forest fire, a mild asset bear market into a destructive financial tsunami. Central bankers, of course, adopting the cloak and demeanor of firefighters or perhaps lifeguards, have been hard at work over the past 12 months to contain the damage. And the private market, in its attempt to anticipate a bear market bottom and snap up “bargains,” has been constructive as well.

Over $400 billion in bank- and finance-related capital has been raised during the past year, a decent amount of it, by the way, having been bought by yours truly and my associates at PIMCO. Too bad for us and for everyone else who bought too soon. There are few of these deals now priced at par or above, which is bondspeak for “they are all underwater.” We, as well as our SWF and central bank counterparts, are reluctant to make additional commitments.

Step 2 on our delevering blackboard therefore has stalled and is inevitably morphing towards Step 3. Assets are still being liquidated but there is an increasing reluctance on the part of the private market to risk any more of its own capital. Liquidity is drying up; risk appetites are anorexic; asset prices, despite a temporarily resurgent stock market, are mainly going down; now even oil and commodity prices are drowning. There may be a Jim Cramer bull market somewhere, but it’s primarily a mirage unless and until we get the entrance of new balance sheets, and a new source of liquidity willing to support asset prices.

New balance sheets? Is this now some Deloitte & Touche metaphor? Hardly. What I mean, what our blackboard and our Investment Committee point out is that to ultimately stop this asset/debt deflation, a fresh and substantial new source of buying power is required. This became all too obvious as the Treasury’s attempt to entice additional capital into Freddie and Fannie came up empty. Yet this same dilemma is and will continue to confront all highly levered institutions in the throes of asset liquidation. Without a new balance sheet, their only resort is to sell assets, which in many cases leads to further price declines, or ultimately debt liquidation/default.

A Depression-era bank robber named Willie Sutton once said that the reason he robbed banks was because “that’s where the money is.” Illegal for sure, but close to an 800 SAT score for logic if you were in the business of stealing other people’s money. And now, while some will compare current government bailouts to Slick Willie, citing moral hazard, near criminal regulatory neglect, and further bailouts for Wall Street and the rich, common sense can lead to no other conclusion: if we are to prevent a continuing asset and debt liquidation of near historic proportions, we will require policies that open up the balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury – not only to Freddie and Fannie but to Mom and Pop on Main Street U.S.A., via subsidized home loans issued by the FHA and other government institutions. A 21st century housing-related version of the RTC such as advocated by Larry Summers amongst others could be another example of the government wallet or balance sheet that is required during rare periods when the private sector is unable or unwilling to step forward.

The bill for our collective speculative profligacy, obvious in the deflating asset markets, can be paid now or it can be paid later. Those aspiring for a perfect 800 on the Wall Street policy exam would conclude that the tab will be less if paid up front, than if swept under a rug of moral umbrage intent on seeking retribution for any and all of those responsible. Now that the Fed has spent 12 months proving that it “knows something…knows something,” it is time for the Treasury to do likewise.

Booyah Hank?

William H. Gross
Managing Director



To: John Pitera who wrote (9896)9/6/2008 12:58:47 AM
From: Jon Koplik4 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 33421
 
Bill Gross is an idiot (or, writes while "on drugs") (or, is just talking nonsense that might help some of his investments not "go to zero.")

Why is it that when something goes up in price absolutely ABSURDLY (real estate last 5 years, commodities last 2 or 3 years, oil last 1 year or so),

that people act as if : we MUST maintain these new price levels ???


Robert Shiller's work on real estate indicates that (adjusted for inflation) (and ... the same size and quality house) ...

real estate is STILL hugely over-priced right now.

(Common sense also indicates the same thing, I think ...)

Commodities -- anyone who has ever looked into long-term trends comes up with the conclusion : commodities should converge to their marginal cost of production, which itself should decline as technological change benefits commodity producers.

A lot of commodities are cheaper right now than they were in the early 1970s.

Those that are not ... I would predict : just wait, they will crash, too.

Should someone have tried to maintain silver at $40 - $50 per ounce since early 1980 ???

Of course not. The price was stupid and wrong.

Jon.