Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The clearest explanation of the economic crisis I have seen yet.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-08 11:45 PM
Original message
The clearest explanation of the economic crisis I have seen yet.
Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 11:52 PM by FedUpWithIt All
I am a complete dunce when it comes to economics. I have really been making an effort to crash coarse the subject in an effort to keep a heads up about what is coming my (all of our) way. I have really been struggling to understand it all. The following was the most comprehensive explanation i have seen yet. I found it while trying to learn more about derivatives. It helped me get a firmer understanding of the credit default swap and the sickening derivatives problem. I hope this helps others.

Credit Default Swaps are basically insurance policies that will pay off if the loan goes bad. The banks have been trading $54.6 trillion dollars' worth of credit default swaps backed by these mortgages.
Why are there 5 times as much insurance on the mortgages than their original principal? It's basically legalized gambling for a bank.
Banks don't have to own the mortgage to bet on whether it will be paid on time. The banks make bundles of hundreds of loans into "Mortgage Backed Securities". They sell these to other banks, but keep the CDS for each of the mortgages, as well as an insurance policy for the MBS itself. Then each bank that swaps them does the same, and some hedge funds that never even owned the MBS take out a CDS on it, betting that the underlying mortgages will go bad.

It's like if insurance companies allowed everybody in town to take out fire insurance on everybody else's house, and people were actively looking for the one that was most likely to burn.


Many of the hedge funds that they are using to insure these trillions of dollars' worth of loans are small offshore
companies. Over $1 trillion dollars' worth of these contracts went bad
when the company that was supposed to pay just went out of business or
refused to pay.
And there are millions of trades between banks; when Lehman Brothers went out of business, hundreds of banks had to scramble to get new insurance for their loans, because, while there are practically no rules about CDS, there are a lot that require banks to keep enough money in the vault to cover risks to the underlying mortgages.



http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-103385



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you, Everyday I understand
more, and frankly it's scaring the beejeesuz out of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Your most welcome.
:hi:

It is upsetting. It makes me angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. What do you get if you put Enron's people in charge of all the banks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick. Seemed a good idea in light of the DOW today.
Again i hope this helps someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnviroBat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thank you Fed Up!
That was helpful. I'm glad to see that your brightness still shines here!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It is good to see you, EnviroBat.
I hope your well.

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnviroBat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-16-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Getting used to the life of a single man, with a heart condition...
Other than that I'm holding out OK. Hope you are doing well...

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-15-08 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Credit Default Swaps aren't made on just mortgages
They're made on all kinds of loans. So to say they are "5 times as much as the mortgages they're made on" is inaccurate.

Here's a piece from Gillian Tett of the Financial Times (who the BBC has been using a lot recently to explain what the hell is going on), from back in May, giving the history about how these things got started:

...

This was where the story of men such as Reoch began. In the mid-1990s, soon after he joined JPMorgan, about 80 other bankers who worked in the company's derivatives business were summoned to a plush hotel in Boca Raton, Florida, for a brainstorming session. The man who ran that team was a British banker called Peter Hancock. Hancock had taken over the derivatives team in the late 1980s, and seen the business become commoditised. For a few days, the young JPMorgan bankers brainstormed ways of overcoming this. Eventually, the group alighted on a potentially fertile new frontier for derivatives: credit. Until that point, banks that made large loans didn't have a way of protecting themselves against the chance of a borrower defaulting. Similarly, investors who held bonds did not have any mechanism to insure against an issuer refusing to pay out. What would happen, the JPMorgan bankers asked, if somebody created a contract that mimicked that credit risk, and then sold that risk to another investor, for a fee?
...
Most important of all, JPMorgan's top management had a compelling reason to innovate. At the time, the bank had so many loans on its books that it was finding it expensive to keep doing business: it needed large "rainy day" reserves to protect against the chance of the loans turning sour. Hancock's team believed that if they found a way to sell this "default risk" to somebody else by repackaging the loans into derivatives, then they could persuade the regulators that they did not need to post such big reserves. "They say necessity is the mother of invention," recalls Andrew Feldstein, a former lawyer who worked with Hancock. "In this case, JPMorgan had a good reason to look at how it handled credit."

In the late 1990s, men such as Feldstein were trying to develop financial techniques that would turn loans into derivatives they could sell on. They started off doing this on an ad-hoc basis but soon discovered that if they created bundles of derivatives contracts linked to loans, then it was easier to sell these instruments to investors - in the same way that it is easier for banks to sell an investor a stake in a mutual fund than shares in an individual company.
...
As the new century dawned, the teams that had traditionally handled "subprime mortgage" finance - or loans extended to borrowers with a poor credit history - started talking to the derivatives groups. "One of the crucial points happened in late 1997 - around then credit derivatives structurers started to meet with securitisation structurers," recalls Reoch, who by this time was working at the Bank of America. "The bingo moment was in the coffee queue of our Chicago office when the two groups met by chance and realised they needed to talk to each other."

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto053020081431572421&page=2


There's more there than can be explained in 4 paragraphs, of course. Tett has a PhD in Social Anthropology from Cambridge, so she's pretty good at explaining the way the groups of bankers were thinking. She knows what she's talking about - many have pointed out she was one of the first in mainstream commenting to point out there was a problem. He she is, on August 23rd 2007:

One is the fact that nobody quite knows exactly where the subprime losses truly lie, since these credits have been sliced into millions – if not billions – of securities and scattered between all these modern investment vehicles. Hence the Bank's baffling diagram.

But the second problem is that nobody knows the real value of these instruments either. For many have never been traded, but simply stuffed into these vehicles and left there, seemingly unnoticed – until now, when investors are panicking about potential losses.

Common sense would suggest the best way to deal with these two problems would be to take two steps: namely inject more transparency into the system, by encouraging institutions to reveal their exposures – and then encourage financial institutions to create a proper market to trade the assets, and thus determine a price.
...
So, for my money, it is worth watching closely for any hint that this restructuring effort is getting under way on a large scale. And if it does – and it remains an "if" – that will be a thoroughly good thing, not just for the banks themselves, but for financial confidence at large.

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto082320071223400214&page=2


But they didn't try to restructure the vehicles, and it all came crashing down around everyone's ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC