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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 10:40:30 AM
From: bentwayRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Meltdown 101: What are credit default swaps?

By ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writer Ellen Simon, Ap Business Writer
Mon Oct 20, 5:48 pm ET

NEW YORK – One festering problem that led to the financial meltdown hasn't been addressed yet: credit default swaps.

The swaps — which were intended either as insurance on debt or side bets, depending on the buyer — are completely unregulated, prone to sloppy documentation and traded without a central clearinghouse.

Sound bad? Here's worse: No one knows how big the market is. Estimates range as high as $62 trillion.

Here are some questions and answers about the swaps and the role they've played in the financial crisis.

Q: What are credit default swaps?

A: A credit default swap is a contract, usually between banks, that acts as insurance on debt. Under the contract, the seller, for a fee, agrees to make a payment to the buyer if something bad happens to the debt the buyer has insured with the swaps.

For instance, a bank that holds another bank's bonds could insure those bonds against loss by buying swaps. If a bond held by an investor lost so much value that it was worth only 8 cents on the dollar, the holder of that investor's credit default swap would owe him 92 cents for each dollar covered by the swaps.

A less charitable characterization is that they're side bets on how debt securities will perform, since you don't have to own a security to buy a credit default swap based on its performance. For instance, you can make a bet on the default rate on a subprime mortgages without buying a penny in mortgages. If those mortgages defaulted and were worth 8 cents on the dollar, you'd make 92 cents on each dollar of the mortgages — the same money you'd collect if you were an actual holder of the debt who'd bought the swap as insurance.

It's not clear how much of the total market falls into each category, but it is widely estimated that far more swaps fall into the "bet" category than the "insurance" category.

Q: What are the risks posed by credit default swaps?

A: The first risk is their sheer size. Writing in Sunday's New York Times, Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, estimated there were $55 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding, which is larger than the combined gross domestic product of every country on Earth.

By comparison, as of the second half of this year, there was only $6 trillion in outstanding corporate debt and $7.5 trillion in mortgage-backed debt, according to data from New York state's insurance regulator.


Since the market for the swaps is so much larger than the initial loans they were meant to insure, credit default swaps have magnified risk exponentially, compounded every injury the financial markets have suffered.

A compounding risk is the murkiness of the market, thanks to the lack of a central clearinghouse or a regulator.

Think about what stock trading would look like if there were no stock exchanges, no company ever filed an annual report, most trading were done over the phone and each trader entered his trades in pencil in a notebook on his desk, which no one outside his firm ever saw.

"You would think that Wall Street would have computerized this when the market started taking off a few years ago," The Wall Street Journal wrote in a 2006 article, which detailed what Wall Street firms were doing to police their own credit-default trading.

"But deals were, and often still are, done by telephone and fax. Detailed confirmations, important in avoiding nettlesome disputes later, weren't completed. One firm confessed in June that it had 18,000 undocumented trades, several thousand of which had been languishing in the back office for more than 90 days."

Q: What role did they play in the financial crisis?

A: They've played more than one role.

The swaps have magnified each crisis, because most of the largest players in finance have bought swaps to protect debt they hold, and have also sold swaps, meaning they could owe money if other banks default.

Also, credit default swaps are secured by the assets of the seller — the business equivalent of using your home to back a fleet of car loans. So if Bank A sold a hefty amount of swaps on Bank B's debt and Bank B files for bankruptcy, Bank A is suddenly facing a monstrous series of payments — enough to push it into bankruptcy, too.

"When we were dealing with finding a solution for AIG, we knew the company had written almost half a trillion dollars in swaps, but we had no idea how much swaps had been written on AIG itself or by whom," said Eric Dinallo, superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, in Senate testimony last week. "That meant we did not know what the broader effect of an AIG bankruptcy would be."

That meant that if AIG — more formally called American International Group Inc. — filed for bankruptcy, it would set off tidal waves in financial markets whose size would be completely unpredictable. That's one of the reasons why the federal government lent AIG $85 billion.

After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy in September, sellers demanded more collateral on existing swaps. That's sucked away cash that could have been offered up for loans or invested elsewhere — one of the many factors that helped put credit markets into a coma.

Q: What's the history of credit default swaps?

A: Credit default swaps came into being in the late 1990s, when they were seen as a way to manage risk by transferring it to more than one institution. In 1996, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency estimated the size of the market was "tens of billions of dollars."

It's grown over the last decade, especially the last two years, as mortgage defaults rose and investors soured on buying pools of mortgages called mortgage-backed securities. Because banks could no longer sell the mortgages, they held them, loading up on credit default swaps to protect themselves against loss. They bought those swaps from other banks, which held mortgages of their own.

This was "a classic case of wrong-way risk because those firms already had significant exposures" to the mortgages, said Delora Jee, a top regulator at the Office for the Comptroller of the Currency, in a speech last week.

Q: Is anyone saying we could just erase all these contracts?

A: Financial commentator Ben Stein has said that's just what the federal government and the New York State government should do. (Most U.S. credit-default swaps are sold in New York.)

"After all, there was no insurable interest in most cases, which tends to void insurance contracts, which is what a CDS (credit-default swap) is," he wrote in a column on Yahoo's financial web site.

Because of the murkiness of the market for credit default swaps, it's hard to know who would take a financial hit if the swaps were erased.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 10:41:36 AM
From: Jim McMannisRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
RE:"Fannie and Freddie, for all their issues, were victims of the lack of oversight in the unregulated market"

Victims? Raines was a $90 million "victim"? I wanna be a "victim". g



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 11:06:50 AM
From: Ken98Respond to of 306849
 
I could not agree more. But it is clearly one of the talking points from the Fox News crowd - I had the exact same conversation with a family member recently. Namely, that the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie/Freddie were what caused the housing bust/subprime mess.

But there is clearly a slice of the population that is being fed that talking point and repeating it with ZERO understanding that it was the private / unregulated mortgage that were the worst offenders.

It is ironic that the administration for years wanted to get rid of Fannie/Freddie and let Wall Street take over all of residential mortgages, and now they've nationalized them and counting on them to bail out residential. What a mess.



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 12:30:50 PM
From: NOWRespond to of 306849
 
<The Bush administration and Greenspan fought against oversight for ideological reasons>
i think you give them far too much credit: ideology, if it figured in at all, was down the list a mile.
they fought against it for reasons age old: lust for money



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 12:33:10 PM
From: MetacometRespond to of 306849
 
The Bush administration and Greenspan fought against oversight for ideological reasons -

yup..

The ideology is known as Reverse Robin Hood.

You steal from the poor and give to the rich.

Fundamental GOP ideology since Reagan.....



To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (158733)10/21/2008 12:49:28 PM
From: ChanceIsRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
>>>This "blame the GSEs" talking point is so stupid you'd think everyone would just laugh.<<<

Hold your horses CR.

Lets consider....

1) FNE/FRE got bailed out. That speaks for itself - and loudly. There were those who said that the national debt doubled over a weekend in July with the swipe of a pen. It was huge.

2) Is it not the case that FNE/FRE were buying massive amounts of subprime (to include ARMs?) in its various incarnations??

3) Is it not the case that FNE/FRE were selling mortgage insurance way beyond their means to make good?? Remember, insurance is just a nice sounding name for a put. A put is a nice sounding name for a derivative...you know...financial dark matter.

4) Fannie and Freddie, for all their issues, were victims of the lack of oversight in the unregulated market. Who knew real estate better than FNE/FRE??? After all they were the nation's largest lenders since the Great Depression. If anybody could have detected a bubble - it should have been them. When a bubble happens, those in the know exit or get short. Wasn't FRE/FNE cure for the crash to run to Congress - in 2007 - and get the conforming ceiling raised.....to about $1 MM......and make more bad loans? Please!!!!!

5) I think that ten years ago FNE/FRE had about 85% of the action. I think that was down to about 45% in 2005 (very unsure of the fractions here - but there was a big shift). When FNE/FRE saw the zero LTV, piggybacks, etc coupled with loss of market share, they are the ones who should have been running to the admin/Congress sounding the fire alarms. When a business looses market share this usually gets the attention of senior management - after all it trashes profits. The reason for the loss of market share was obvious - the competition was beating them on rates and qualification standards. They had an ethical obligation to sound the alarm. Consider the merchant generation sector. When it was born, the traditional utilities whose market share was threatened did the honorable thing - they (quite illegally) wouldn't buy electricity from the competition (think what FNE/FRE did with bundled mortgages - not) and they went to Congress and tried to get regional repeal of the electric restructuring laws. They also went screaming to FERC - the regulatory authority - and induced investigation upon investigation upon investigation. Please don't tell me that there wasn't significant obvious fraud on the private side back in '04 upon which FNE/FRE could have quite justifiably requested an investigation. FNE/FRE were just too fat dumb and happy. Too lazy to even guard their market share. And as long as prices were rising, they wouldn't have any mortgages put back to them. Why mess up a good deal? If the private sector was pushing up prices then all the better for them. Besides the private sector would take the first hit, leaving FNE/FRE with a nice moat.

Perhaps my suggestion that FNE/FRE caused the real estate bubble is a stretch. "Enabled" would be a much better choice of words.

Surely FNE/FRE had nothing to do with credit default swaps on commercial paper. I didn't mean to allege that it did. We are just finding out how bad the CDS situation is, and it will likely dwarf real estate. But then again, I have heard from many sources that the regional banks in aggregate have about 65% of their portfolios tied to real estate, and CDSs are all about insuring that stuff.

Hedge funds being diligent due to a lack of government guarantee??? He should not have gone there. There was this little matter a decade ago called Long Term Capital Management. LTCM had an investment model and plan. It wasn't complete fantasy but surely ignored the fat tails. It worked well for a while. Since it worked for a year or so, the banks which funded it stopped asking reasonable questions and sent money by the truckload. Then poof. The FED would not have gotten involved if it wasn't serious. So there we had a totally private concern threatening the system. But it sounds to me like it was the banks which stopped performing diligence. Was LTCM diligent??? Sure. Ir asked the right question - who's money is this. It was OPM - no need to even consider breaking a sweat on more diligence.

So sure. The private sector can do a lot of damage if left unchecked. There is enough blame to go around. But FNE/FRE have blood on their hands which reaches up to their eyeballs.

(Quite the mixed metaphor there but my imagination fails this PM.)