Skip to main content

The Real Reason Behind the Global Financial Crisis, Part II

Financial Crisis, Part II
by: Money Morning posted on: September 22, 2008
By Shah Gilani
[Part II of a three-story investigation of the credit crisis, showing how American International Group (AIG), a perfectly sound company that’s survived for 89 years, was destroyed by some errant bets on a derivative security called a “credit default swap,” or CDS.]
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the core insurance business units of American International Group Inc. Nothing at all. What imploded the venerable insurance giant was an accumulation of misplaced bets on credit default swaps.
By the best estimates of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the Bank for International Settlements [BIS], often referred to as the central banks’ central bank, the notional value of credit default swaps is some $62 trillion, or 35 trillion British Pounds at an exchange rate of $1.78.
A credit default swap is akin to an insurance policy. It’s a financial derivative that a debt holder can use to hedge against the default by a debtor corporation or sovereign. But a CDS can also be used to speculate.
A subsidiary of AIG wrote insurance in the form of credit default swaps, meaning it offered buyers insurance protection against losses on debts and loans of borrowers, to the tune of $447 billion. But the mix was toxic. They also sold insurance on esoteric asset-backed security pools – securities like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), pools of subprime mortgages, pools of Alt-A mortgages, prime mortgage pools and collateralized loan obligations. The subsidiary collected a lot of premium income and its earnings were robust.
When the housing market collapsed, imploding home prices resulted in precipitously rising foreclosures. The mortgage pools AIG insured began to fall in value. Additionally, the credit crisis began to take its toll on leveraged loans and it saw mounting losses on the loan pools it had insured. In 2007, the company was starting to feel serious heat.
From its humble beginnings in China in 1919 – through the 40-year tenure of CEO Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, which ended ignominiously for Greenberg in 2006 – AIG grew aggressively. Greenberg grew and diversified the insurance giant, ultimately amassing a trillion-dollar balance sheet.
But not everything was Kosher.
In an effort to assuage analysts and maintain leverage, the firm entered into sham transactions to affect the appearance on its balance sheet of $500 million of loan-loss reserves, which analysts had been questioning as formerly declining. The result was a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a $1.6 billion settlement and the removal of Greenberg. Greenberg is still fighting civil charges related to his actions at the firm.
As 2007 progressed, so did the losses on AIG’s books and credit default swaps. Once again, it appears that AIG tried to “manage” the problem through accounting maneuvers. Last February, for instance, AIG said that “its auditor had found a material weakness in its accounting.” It had not been properly valuing its CDO liabilities and swap-related write-downs. The losses were revealed to be in excess of $20 billion through this year’s first quarter. The SEC is once again investigating, as are criminal prosecutors at the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn.
After writing down assets against gains elsewhere, AIG posted cumulative losses of $18 billion over the last three quarters. In February, AIG posted $5.3 billion in collateral against credit default swap contracts it had written. In April, AIG had to post an additional $4.4 billion in collateral. When rating agencies Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings Inc., lowered the firm’s ratings last Monday evening, it triggered an additional $14 billion collateral call as margin against AIG’s credit default swaps.
The company didn’t have the cash.
Indeed, the dire need for cash collateral on top of mounting losses on warehoused CDO “assets” on the company’s balance sheet necessitated a massive infusion of capital. That’s what happened to AIG.
But once again, there’s the story – and there’s the story behind the story.
There’s a problem – an inherently systemic problem – and it has to do with how structured investments like tranched collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS], commercial mortgage-backed securities [CMBS], and credit default swaps on them and on corporate debts and loans are actually valued.
Individually, CDOs are hard to value. Suffice it to say, legend has it that constructing the cash flow payments on the first theoretical 3-tranche CDO (the simplest type of CDO) took a Cray Inc. supercomputer 48 hours. Now try and value credit default swaps on them!
Because there are so many different individual CDO securities, and because there are so many credit default swaps on so many of these CDOs, and so many swaps on individually referenced entity debts and loans, the only way to value them in a portfolio is by indexing.
That’s right, there are indexes, and guess what? You can trade the indexes! Markit Group Ltd., of London, constructs and manages the CDX, ABX, CMBX and LCDX family of credit-default-swap indexes. Investopedia has a decent little tutorial.
Here’s the problem: If you own a portfolio of CDOs, and the only way to value them (or, at least, to develop a valuation that others are reasonably certain to respect), is by looking at them through the prism of an index of credit default swaps on them, you’re at the mercy of the index. Your portfolio, your securities may not be so bad, but you may not really know based on mortgage-duration analysis and foreclosure events that you can’t calculate. So you value, or mark-to-market, against the closest index.
Here’s the rub. What if other speculators are selling short – that is, betting in anticipation of that index going down? What if large portfolio-hedgers are selling short the index to hedge the portfolio they can’t sell because no one will buy it – because no one knows what it’s worth?
It’s crazy. And it gets worse.
What if you’re running a profitable company that needs to borrow money, but credit default swaps (bets against your ability to pay back your debt) are expensive by virtue of speculators' fear and greed, such that if any bank looks at where the CDS pricing on your paper is trading, they tell you: “Sorry, but we can’t lend you money because the market for credit default swaps thinks you’re a bad bet.”
You don’t get the loan. You can’t build your factory; you can’t produce and have nothing to sell. The upshot: Now you actually are going out of business. Is this self-fulfilling?
Ponder this: Last Monday, as AIG was initially seeking $20 billion in capital and actually had it in hand (by virtue of a deal with New York insurance regulators), traders were bidding up credit default swaps on AIG’s debt and loans so furiously that based on the insurance premium,s traders were actually paying for default insurance on AIG… the company was already dead. Self-fulfilling?
Credit default swaps are creating a downward spiral in the capital markets, driving up the cost of capital, and squeezing out all manner of borrowers. And these speculative bets run amok are undermining all U.S. Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department efforts to “liquefy” the system. If this keeps up, the credit default market could sink the U.S. economy into a recession/depression that will make the Great Depression look like a day at the beach.
Anyone got a towel?
Original post

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When the Soup Kitchens Begin to Die

There is a special kind of cruelty in watching not only a society collapse, but also the last institutions keeping it alive. For nearly three years, Gaza's humanitarian lifeline has increasingly been reduced to a queue for a single meal. Parents no longer ask their children what they would like to eat. They ask whether there will be anything to eat at all. Childhood has become measured not in birthdays, classrooms, or family gatherings, but in ration lines, empty cooking pots, and the uncertain arrival of humanitarian assistance. Now even those fragile lifelines are disappearing. The gradual closure and scaling back of World Central Kitchen (WCK) operations reflects a convergence of financial pressures, operational insecurity, and restrictions affecting humanitarian access. According to World Central Kitchen and the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, kitchens that once produced approximately one million meals each day have been progressively reduced, leaving only a han...

The Cracks Are No Longer Hairline

For decades, Washington treated support for Israel as something beyond debate. It was political scripture. Republicans defended it. Democrats defended it. Presidents came and went, wars came and went, thousands died, settlements expanded, Gaza burned, and the checks kept arriving. Questioning the arrangement was once political suicide. Now the walls are cracking. This week, more than half of House Democrats either voted to end U.S. aid to Israel or refused to oppose doing so. The amendment failed, but something far more important succeeded. The illusion collapsed. For years, American politicians insisted that criticism of Israeli government policy belonged only to "the fringe." Apparently the fringe has become half the Democratic caucus. History has an unusual sense of humor. The same establishment that spent years dismissing students, academics, humanitarian workers, doctors, journalists, and millions of protesters as naïve, radical, or antisemitic now finds itself strugglin...

Deutsche Bank's AML Failures: A Case Study in Regulatory Enforcement

German regulator BaFin has withdrawn its special monitor from Deutsche Bank, initially installed due to unresolved money-laundering control deficiencies . This monitor had been in place since 2018 , with its mandate extended to October 2024 earlier this year, threatening fines if improvements weren't made . Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest bank, acknowledged its compliance issues and stated it was cooperating with regulators . However, another monitor remains active , overseeing the bank's consumer service issues at its Postbank unit. Neither BaFin nor Deutsche Bank commented on the withdrawal report Part I Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany. What were the specific deficiencies in Deutsche Bank's money-laundering controls? Deutsche Bank has faced significant deficiencies in its anti-money laundering (AML) controls , primarily highlighted by: - Inadequate Customer Due Diligence:   The bank failed to perform sufficient due diligence on customer...

Morgan Stanley's ex-terrorism specialist ( Valentina Soria) joins UBS in London

  by Alex McMurray   "(Valentina)  Soria, an Italian based in London, joins UBS as its global head of cyber threat intelligence and adversarial threat modelling. She was at Morgan Stanley for six and a half years, starting as the EMEA cyber threat intelligence lead and rising to head of global threat intelligence. Prior to that she was head of intelligence at the Bank of England. She leaves at a tumultuous time for the US bank as other senior  London officials are reportedly included  in its 3000 person job cuts." SOURCE:  https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/2023/05/morgan-stanley-ubs-intelligence

When the President Sounds the Alarm, But the Government Looks Away.

A President's Moral Warning Israeli presidents traditionally avoid political confrontation. Their role is largely ceremonial and symbolic, intended to unify rather than divide. Yet Herzog chose to speak openly about something many observers have documented for years: the erosion of moral restraints. His language was unusually severe. Warning of what he called " a terrible process of brutalization " within Israeli society, Herzog lamented that " there are segments among us that are barely shocked by violence anymore " while " certain other segments treat it lightly." Perhaps most alarming was his warning that extremist conduct is no longer confined to society's fringes. Such behavior, he said, is " threatening to enter the mainstream ." The significance of the speech lies not merely in what was said, but in who said it. When a country's ceremonial head of state feels compelled to warn that brutality is becoming normalized, the ...