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

Famine by design, Silence by Choice: 90,000 children are dying and still the UN can't find it's Spine.

  ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar | July 22, 2025 📍 From the graveyard of global morality: Gaza Let’s be clear. If a three-month-old baby named Yehia dies of starvation in his mother’s arms at Nasser Hospital, that should be enough for the world to say: “Enough.” But in today’s U.N., apparently 90,000 malnourished children, daily starvation deaths, and food rotting at the Gaza border still don’t meet the “technical ” threshold for famine . Welcome to the age of data-driven genocide , where unless a corpse is tagged with the right IPC Level 5 barcode , it's not really dead enough to matter. 📉 No Data? No Problem. Just Ignore the Bones. Let’s break this down. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) — a bureaucratic tool forged in the fires of humanitarian intention — tells us that famine exists when: 20% of households face extreme food shortage, Acute malnutrition in children exceeds 30%, Deaths exceed 2 per 10,000 per day. But wait — Gaza’s under siege, aid...

🏗️ Corporate Complicity in Genocide: The Global Economy Behind Gaza’s Ruin.

📅 July 5, 2025 “We are witnessing not just genocide in Gaza—but a genocide made profitable.” — UN Special Rapporteur, A/HRC/59/23 “This report is written from the heart of darkness . It is penned with a broken hand from a broken land for a broken people . But its words are not broken . They are the words of law and of longing . They are the words of those who are not yet silenced . It is written for Palestinians , first and foremost. It is also addressed to those who remain silent , indifferent or complicit . And it is a call to action for those who are not.” — Introduction, UN Report A/HRC/59/23 In an unprecedented and unflinching report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has laid bare the truth that much of the world’s corporate, academic, and financial architecture is actively complicit in Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and now, genocide in Gaza. This isn’t just about military aggression . This is about the mac...

"Globalize the Intifada”—Or How to Offend Power by Naming Its Crimes

  📰 The New York Times and the Art of Grieving Selectively ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar 📍 ainnbeen.blogspot.com 📅 July 2, 2025 Bret Stephens is upset. Again. Apparently, he’s still recovering from Café Moment. And Passover in Netanya. And that one horrific morning in 2004 when he saw carnage on Azza Street. And he has every right to grieve those losses. Every human does. But here’s the thing: Some corpses get columns. Others get erased. Stephens, perched on the prestigious opinion page of The New York Times , just spent a full-length sermon condemning Zohran Mamdani—not for what he said, but for what he refused to denounce: the phrase “ globalize the intifada.” According to Bret, refusing to ritually cleanse your political career with the holy water of pro-Israel respectability is now akin to blessing bus bombings. What “ globalize the intifada” really means, Mr. Stephens, is refusing to accept a world where genocide is livestreamed, and the world just shrugs. It means dari...

“Starving to Death, But Very Politely” — Gaza’s Famine and the Theater of Moral Collapse

📍Blog: ainnbeen.blogspot.com ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar | July 25, 2025 Let us all pause and thank the New York Times . After 21 months of bombing , blockade, and bullets , we finally have permission — no, confirmation — from America’s journal of record that yes, Gazans are, in fact, dying of starvation. The paper even sent reporters to Haifa, Jerusalem, and London — not Gaza, of course — to deliver the news. Skeletal toddlers, lactating mothers without milk, IV drips rationed like treasure — all neatly documented, sanitized, and wrapped in diplomatic passive voice. But fear not. The famine is not the fault of any one side. It's simply the result of “human failings , ” the report says. Ah yes, the tragedy of equal blame . A little siege here, a little looting there — and voilà! Starvation appears like a natural disaster . Like a famine tsunami . No perpetrators. Just poor little victims. Meanwhile, Israel, the world’s most moral occupier™ , is gallantly uploading videos of...

🩸 "If It Were Really Genocide, Wouldn’t More People Be Dead?" — The Cruel Logic of Bret Stephens

  ✍️ By Malik Mukhtar | July 23, 2025 So let’s all take a moment to appreciate the cold brilliance of Bret Stephens , New York Times columnist and self-appointed moral compass for the apocalypse. In his latest masterstroke of ethical reasoning , he argues that the claim of genocide in Gaza rings hollow — not because tens of thousands haven’t been killed , but because not enough have. “It may seem harsh to say, but there is a glaring dissonance to the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” “If the Israeli government’s intentions and actions are truly genocidal — if it is so malevolent that it is committed to the annihilation of Gazans — why hasn’t it been more methodical and vastly more deadly?” Ah yes, the ol’ “ not genocidal enough” defense — a timeless classic. You see, according to Stephens, genocide must be more “ methodical ,” more “ deadly .” A mere 60,000 deaths (as reported by Gaza’s health ministry) over two years of war doesn’t meet the qu...