Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why we took over AIG...$441 billion in CDS on mortgage related securities.

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
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 06:12 PM
Original message
Why we took over AIG...$441 billion in CDS on mortgage related securities.
Your Money at Work, Fixing Others’ Mistakes
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: September 20, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21gret.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Credit default swaps, which operate like insurance policies against the possibility that an issuer of debt will not pay on its obligations, were the single biggest motivator behind the A.I.G. deal.

A.I.G. had written $441 billion in credit insurance on mortgage-related securities whose values have declined; if A.I.G. were to fail, all the institutions that bought the insurance would have been subject to enormous losses. The ripple effect could have turned into a tsunami.

So, the $85 billion loan to A.I.G. was really a bailout of the company’s counterparties or trading partners.

Now, inquiring minds want to know, whom did we rescue? Which large, wealthy financial institutions — counterparties to A.I.G.’s derivatives contracts — benefited from the taxpayers’ $85 billion loan? Were their representatives involved in the talks that resulted in the last-minute loan?

And did Lehman Brothers not get bailed out because those favored institutions were not on the hook if it failed?

We’ll probably never know the answers to these troubling questions. But by keeping taxpayers in the dark, regulators continue to earn our mistrust. As long as we are not told whom we have bailed out, we will be justified in suspecting that a favored few are making gains on our dimes.

A.I.G.’s financial statements provided a clue to the identities of some of its credit default swap counterparties. The company said that almost three-quarters of the $441 billion it had written on soured mortgage securities was bought by European banks. The banks bought the insurance to reduce the amounts of capital they were required by regulators to set aside to cover future losses.

Enjoy the absurdity: Billions in unregulated derivatives that were about to take down the insurance company that sold them were bought by banks to get around their regulatory capital requirements intended to rein in risk.

Got that?

Which brings us to Item 2 for policy makers. Stop pretending that the $62 trillion market for credit default swaps does not need regulatory oversight. Warren E. Buffett was not engaging in hyperbole when he called these things financial weapons of mass destruction.

“The last eight years have been about permitting derivatives to explode, knowing they were unregulated,” said Eric R. Dinallo, New York’s superintendent of insurance. “It’s about what the government chose not to regulate, measured in dollars. And that is what shook the world.”

And it will continue.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can somebody explain to me something...
So, I get that a huge economic downer right now is that there are all these mortgages of questionable risk out there, because they've been bought and sold so many times.
Why don't banks just get to work re-evaluating the risk of the mortgages they own and even if you don't do anything to the terms of the loans, at least you know what the value is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Banks don't own most of the mortgages anymore.
They've been securitized and chopped up.

Get this...they take a bunch of mortgages and put it into a pool. Then they chop it up into tranches. You buy the top tranch. You get a lower interest rate, but you get first dibs on the principal.

I buy the lowest tranch. I get a higher rate while it pays, but if it defaults I take the hit first.

So nobody even knows where the entire mortgage is anymore!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R. Thanks for posting this. Must read.
GRETCHEN MORGENSON is just about the best financial writer living today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. Follow the money. Follow the money. Follow the money.
Who were the counterparties to AIG's derivative contracts?

Why does Gretchen think we will never know the answer to those "troubling" questions? If we're bailing their asses out, we have RIGHT to know!!!!!

GDAMMIT! I want to know the answer to that question NOW!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Just think if it is UBS...connected to Phil Gramm.
That would be huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Just like AIG & the Carlyle Group.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R...the whole article is worth a read, too. Your snips are good, though...
for those who don't like to register there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-08 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. What's most important to realize (imho) is that a "derivative" is a creature of law.
Edited on Sun Sep-21-08 10:13 PM by TahitiNut
It ONLY exists as an enforced ownership entitlement by virtue of a government legal system that treats 'ownership' as some tangible 'good'. Without the laws and the police powers of the state to enforce such laws, a "derivative" has absolutely no existence.

It's EXACTLY like a title of 'nobility' enTITLEd a 'duke' or 'baron' to the real products of labor (of peasants, of course) within a monarchical government.

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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:49 AM
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