Skip to main content

The Real Reason Behind the Global Financial Crisis

by: Money Morning posted on: September 19, 2008
By Shah Gilani
[Part I of a three-part series looking at how so-called “credit default swap” derivatives could ignite a worldwide capital markets meltdown]
Are you shell-shocked? Are you wondering what’s really going on in the market? The truth is probably more frightening than even your worst fears. And yet, you won’t hear about it anywhere else because “they” can’t tell you. “They” are the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department, and they can’t tell you what’s really going on because there’s nothing they can do about it, except what they’ve been trying to do - add liquidity.
At the exchange rate Wednesday, 35 trillion British Pounds was equivalent to U.S. $62 trillion (hence, the 35 trillion pound gorilla). According to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, $62 trillion is the notional value of credit default swaps [CDS] out there, somewhere, in the market.
This isn’t the first time Money Morning has warned readers about the dangers of credit default swaps. And it won’t be the last.
The Genesis of a Derivative Boom
In the mid-1980s, upon arriving in New York from Chicago with an extensive background in trading options and futures (the original derivatives), I was offered a job at what was then Citicorp [today’s Citigroup Inc. (C)]. The offer was for an entry-level post in the bank’s brand new OTC (over-the-counter, meaning not exchange traded) swaps and derivatives group. When I asked what the economic purpose of swaps was, the answer came back: “To make money for the bank.”
I declined the position.
It used to be that regulators and legislators demanded theoretical, empirical, and quantitative measures of the efficacy of new tradable instruments being proposed by exchanges. What is their purpose? How will they benefit the capital markets and the economy? And, what safeguards will accompany their introduction?
Not any more. In the early 1990s, in order to hedge their loan risks, J. P. Morgan & Co. [now JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)] bankers devised credit default swaps.
A credit default swap is, essentially, an insurance contract between a protection buyer and a protection seller covering a corporation’s, or sovereign’s (the “referenced entity”), specific bond or loan.
A protection buyer pays an upfront amount and yearly premiums to the protection seller to cover any loss on the face amount of the referenced bond or loan. Typically, the insurance is for five years.
Credit default swaps are bilateral contracts, meaning they are private contracts between two parties. CDSs are subject only to the collateral and margin agreed to by contract. They are traded over-the-counter, usually by telephone. They are subject to re-sale to another party willing to enter into another contract. Most frighteningly, credit default swaps are subject to “counterparty risk.”
If the party providing the insurance protection - once it has collected its upfront payment and premiums - doesn’t have the money to pay the insured buyer in the case of a default event affecting the referenced bond or loan (think hedge funds), or if the “insurer” goes bankrupt (Bear Stearns was almost there, and American International Group Inc. (AIG) was almost there) the buyer is not covered - period. The premium payments are gone, as is the insurance against default.
Credit default swaps are not standardized instruments. In fact, they technically aren’t true securities in the classic sense of the word in that they’re not transparent, aren’t traded on any exchange, aren’t subject to present securities laws, and aren’t regulated. They are, however, at risk - all $62 trillion (the best guess by the ISDA) of them.
Fundamentally, this kind of derivative serves a real purpose - as a hedging device. The actual holders, or creditors, of outstanding corporate or sovereign loans and bonds might seek insurance to guarantee that the debts they are owed are repaid. That’s the economic purpose of insurance.
What happened, however, is that risk speculators who wanted exposure to certain asset classes, various bonds and loans, or security pools such as residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities (yes, those same subprime mortgage-backed securities that you’ve been reading about), but didn’t actually own the underlying credits, now had a means by which to speculate on them.
If you think XYZ Corp. is in trouble, and won’t be able to pay back its bondholders, you can speculate by buying, and paying premiums for, credit default swaps on their bonds, which will pay you the full face amount of the bonds if they do actually default. If, on the other hand, you think that XYZ Corp. is doing just fine, and its bonds are as good as gold, you can offer insurance to a fellow speculator, who holds the opinion opposite yours. That means you’d essentially be speculating that the bonds would not default. You’re hoping that you’ll collect, and keep, all the premiums, and never have to pay off on the insurance. It’s pure speculation.
Credit default swaps are not unlike me being able to insure your house, not with you, but with someone else entirely not connected to your house, so that if your house is washed away in the next hurricane I get paid its value. I’m speculating on an event. I’m making a bet.
The bad news is that there are even worse bets out there. There are credit default swaps written on subprime mortgage securities. It’s bad enough that these subprime mortgage pools that banks, investment banks, insurance companies, hedge funds and others bought were over-rated and ended up falling precipitously in value as foreclosures mounted on the underlying mortgages in the pools.
What’s even worse, however, is that speculators sold and bought trillions of dollars of insurance that these pools would, or wouldn’t, default! The sellers of this insurance (AIG is one example) are getting killed as defaults continue to rise with no end in sight.
And this is only where the story begins.
The Ticking Time Bomb
What is happening in both the stock and credit markets is a direct result of what’s playing out in the CDS market. The Fed could not let Bear Stearns enter bankruptcy because - and only because - the trillions of dollars of credit default swaps on its books would be wiped out. All the banks and institutions that had insurance written by Bear would not be able to say that they were insured or hedged anymore and they would have to write-down billions and billions of dollars in losses that they’ve been carrying at higher values because they could say that they were insured for those losses.
The counterparty risk that all Bear’s trading partners were exposed to was so far and wide, and so deep, that if Bear was to enter bankruptcy it would take years to sort out the risk and losses. That was an untenable option.
The Fed had to bail out Bear Stearns.
The same thing has just happened to AIG. Make no mistake about it, there’s nothing wrong with AIG’s insurance subsidiaries - absolutely nothing. In fact, the Fed just made the best trade in its history by bailing AIG out and getting equity, warrants and charging the insurance giant seven points over the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate [LIBOR] on that $85 billion loan!
What happened to AIG is simple: AIG got greedy. AIG, as of June 30, had written $441 billion worth of swaps on corporate bonds, and worse, mortgage-backed securities. As the value of these insured-referenced entities fell, AIG had massive write-downs and additionally had to post more collateral. And when its ratings were downgraded on Monday evening, the company had to post even more collateral, which it didn’t have.
In short, what happened in one small AIG corporate subsidiary blew apart the largest insurance company in the world.
But there’s more - a lot more. These instruments are causing many of the massive write-downs at banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Knowing what all this means for hedge funds, the credit markets and the stock market is the key to understanding where this might end and how.
The rest of the story will be illuminated in the next two installments. Next up: An examination of the AIG collapse, followed by a look at how bad things could get, and what we can do to fix the problem at hand. So stay tuned.
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...