0
0

Counterparty risk and bubble hedging


               
2007 Dec 20, 3:59am   20,650 views  94 comments

by HARM   follow (0)  

While the sheer volume of bubble/hedge fund/MBS-CDO implosion stories appearing in the news daily nowadays, it can be difficult to pick out the "pearls" among the pebbles, or the truly extraordinary items from the mundane "yet another Wall Street multi-billion-dollar write-down". (Btw, amazing to see bubble implosion lead headlines every day on Bloomberg, MSNBC & CNNMoney, etc. compared to just 2-3 years ago, isn't it? Any long-timers remember Face Reality, Fake P, MarinaPrime, CuriousCat, DAiryQueen, etc. brushing off our concerns as Chicken Little, doomster hand-wringing?).

This one recently caught my eye, and stayed in the back of my mind (via Tanta with Calculated Risk):

"It's a zero-sum game. If you put trades on that worked so well that you bankrupt your counterparty, you will not collect on those trades.”

--Jim Keegan, a senior vice president and portfolio manager at American Century Investments

I've often read MSM quotes from Wall Street outfit bigwigs (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Chase, Citibank, etc.) to the effect that, "Even if all these MBSs/CDOs, derivatives, swap agreements & $Trillions in other financial Dark Matter go 'boom!', we're ok, dude. 'Cuz we, like, hedge 'n stuff."

Apparently, (if I'm reading Jim Keegan correctly), if your "insurance company" goes belly-up, then you "may" have a problem collecting on that insurance policy. So, I guess it comes down to a case of gambling --even on the bearish/short side-- is *still* gambling?

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Discuss, enjoy...
HARM

#bubbles

Comments 1 - 23 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

1   monkframe   @   2007 Dec 20, 4:02am  

Don't worry, be happy.

2   PA Homeowner   @   2007 Dec 20, 4:07am  

HARM - I think you have this right, the latest thing is counterparty risk. The WSJ has an article today about one of the bond insurers that was just downgraged - apparently they are a counterparty to hedges Morgan Stanley has for subprime exposure.

I don't get it - if you are a bond insurer, why would you get more exposure to subprime by entering into derivatives with banks to be even more exposed to default risk - shouldn't they have been hedging the risk and not getting longer?

3   Duke   @   2007 Dec 20, 4:23am  

Insurance has always only been as good as the solvency of the insurer. The, gasp, moreal hazard is that when State Farm goes under Uncle Sam always steps up and honors their claims. I am so sick of privatizing gains and socializing losses.
The shenanigans with the hedge companies is that they are not required to carry capital reserves at the same rate as banks. So, as these firms go under (which hasppens really fast) what will be at risk is the entire financial concept of a hedge.

Coupled with the other doozies today (good series of posted articles 12/20/07)on bond holders suing banks for knowingly lending on fraudulent loan applications and we have the potential of wiping out banking.

At a guess I would say the Federal governement will not allow lawsuits. Foregn appetitide for American debt will demand a huge premium. Fannie and Freddie face insolvency unless they can only buy loans for what they can package and sell them for, which will mean WAY more then 0.25% premium - I am thinking more like 2%.

I really hope our governement can make this all unwind in an orderly fashion as we face the biggest financial crises we are likely to ever see in our lives.

4   HARM   @   2007 Dec 20, 4:28am  

I recall some gloom-n-doomers on some obscure Bay Area real estate blog about 2 years ago whining about ridiculous stuff like "counterparty default risk" and "Cascading Cross Defaults". I wonder whatever happened to those cockeyed conspiracy wingnuts?

5   Bruce   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:32am  

HARM, very good of you to invoke Confused Opinions and his/her colleagues.

But I suspect they're having to take a fresh look at their affairs just now. All those Mia Farrows just realized they weren't dreaming. (Rosemary's Baby)

6   slantedview   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:36am  

Harm,

What do you expect from people who were drinking the kool-aid? Yep, they were all wrong, just like we knew they would turn out to be.

7   StuckInBA   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:49am  

It is frightening that so many bloggers have been so far ahead of the curve than these bankers, investors and economists. It indicates much deeper problems in the financial institutions.

8   StuckInBA   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:53am  

HARM,

Let's see. I loaned money to someone to buy a house. Since I am so smart, I also buy insurance that this guy pays back the loan. Now the house is 50% of the loan value, and that guy has disappeared. And in the meanwhile, the insurance agency meanwhile has no money either. Hmmm. May be, I have a problem. I admit to that possibility. You are definitely onto something here.

9   EBGuy   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:54am  

I think what wigs me out most about watching the bubble burst is reading about it several months earlier on the blogs. To see “counterparty default risk” in the MSM is disquieting, to say the least. Oh, and it looks like there may be some "seepage" into CA munis: Municipal bonds hit by mortgage fallout.
Also, it appears that "jingle mail" has hit main street with a vengence. Low/no equity FBs getting the green light (look, my neighbor did it) is the final shoe dropping as far as I am concerned.

10   ColoradoBear   @   2007 Dec 20, 5:59am  

Last I heard derivatives were touted as great tools to spread risk.

The risk is spreading alright.

There's some entertaining stuff in the story pointed to by the "Bass Shorted" link.

"When someone explained to me that it was a synthetic CDO that takes the other side of my trade, it took me a month to understand what the hell was going on.''

This guy vs. the charlatan Sadek? God I love it when guys Sadek have to eat dirt.

11   DinOR   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:03am  

"and that guy has disappeared" LOL!

Great topic HARM! Perhaps ACA's 29% ownership by BSC explains why Santa didn't visit them this year!? ( Naughty little Bear Sterns!)

O.K, here we go. I got some brand new steps and some weight to lose!

Just as most of us had never heard of, or gave any further thought to now defunct, laughable subprime lenders like Sebring, Own-it and my favorite "QuickLoanFunding.com" we'll have a whole new cast of J.O's to lampoon. Warren B. gave out some stern warnings about the explosion of derivatives as early as '02 (but what the hell would HE know ).

Perhaps the problem was that he spoke in too vague a terms and should instead pointed to s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c J.O's?

12   DinOR   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:06am  

"The risk is spreading alright" LOL!

Good one Bear. Kind of like "the containment is spreading" but w/ a fresh new twist. I like it!

13   Peter P   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:10am  

“The risk is spreading alright” LOL!

Yet another reason for a bailout!

14   DinOR   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:13am  

Oh just to clarify (and please feel free to correct me) when WB was quoted in interviews about his concern for the growth in the use of derivatives I think most of us just kind of assumed he was talking about.... options, futures, options on futures and so on.

Does anyone here recall thinking to themselves back in '02 this pertained to credit default swaps etc? I know I sure didn't.

15   Richmond   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:17am  

What was it that Warren called "derivatives"? Oh yeah, I believe it was-"weapons of financial mass destruction".

16   skibum   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:23am  

DQ numbers for the Bay Area November are out.

http://dqnews.com/RRBay1207.shtm

17   DinOR   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:26am  

Richmond,

Yeah, I believe he DID say that. :) I'll see what I can't dig up. Even though WB sold his long held SoCal beach home around the peak, he insisted it was more about fundamentals and portfolio management than out of fear of a housing bubble. I don't ever recall a direct comment connecting the HB w/ WOFMD's?

18   OO   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:31am  

DQ: Bay Area home sales stuck at two-decade low; price picture mixed

Deep Freeze coming
http://www.dqnews.com/RRBay1207.shtm

19   OO   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:31am  

oops, skibum beat me to it

20   OO   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:36am  

Question: I am looking at foreclosure.com, there's a new tab called sheriff sale, what does it mean? Thanks.

21   Richmond   @   2007 Dec 20, 6:55am  

Isn't that where the Sheriff executes the forelosure sale in the front yard?
I don't think they do that in CA. Real estate pros say it takes their business.
I could be wrong, but that rings a bell.

22   justme   @   2007 Dec 20, 7:02am  

Man, I want to get myself one of them sheriff deals.

23   Peter P   @   2007 Dec 20, 7:03am  

Question: I am looking at foreclosure.com, there’s a new tab called sheriff sale, what does it mean? Thanks.

Perhaps it means that the persons or occupants had already been hauled out by the sheriff.

Comments 1 - 23 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste