« Population Consumption Hunger | Donal's Blog | Polluting Romania »

Balloon Economy Dad says, "This was not a stunt!"


Even as the Dow rallies to 10,000, those in the real economy wish they were hiding in a closet. Meanwhile Alan Greenspan, the father of our balloon economy, appears to reconsider leaving such a highly inflatable situation essentially unsupervised. Baltimore's free City Paper looks past the stock reporting of the NY Times to remind us of the real situation:

Greenspan Changes His Mind

Alan Greenspan has changed his mind, proving finally that he has one. ...

"If they're too big to fail, they're too big," Greenspan said today. "In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil--so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that's what we need to do."

...

By not reminding us just what a credit default swap is, (NY Times reporter) Labaton forfeits his power to reveal what actually happened (and is still happening). Understanding how credit default swaps worked (and then didn't) tells us much about why Citi is failing, why AIG failed (but was propped up), and even, after a fashion, why Greenspan is reversing his stance on "too big to fail."

...

A credit default swap is an insurance product. Say you lend me $100,000 to buy a house, and I agree to pay you back in six years, with a 6 percent interest payment for those years based on a 30-year amortization, and a final balloon payment. For you, this is the equivalent of putting your $100,000 in a CD for 6 years at 6 percent.

Except, I'm not FDIC-insured.

In fact, I'm a very bad risk when compared to an FDIC-insured bank. This is one reason a bank CD pays, like, 2 percent these days instead of 6 percent.

So you really want to get a 6 percent return, or near that, but you really, really want to get your hundred-large back in 2015, even if I'm--as is statistically probable--in jail by then. Or on the lam.

Here's where a CDS comes in. For a small fee, my friend Vinny--er, I mean, "AIG"--will guarantee the $100,000 payment, plus 6 percent interest. You pay AIG a little off the top, say, 1 percent, and still make out with a 5 percent effective annual yield, with NO RISK.

What could go wrong?

OK, so now we see the problem. No one was checking to see if those big banks and insurance companies who issued the CDS--the AIGs of the world--had the dough to pay up if a lot of people like me defaulted. Keeping funds in reserve for such contingencies is one of the first rules of both banking and insurance. But with derivatives, it was not done, mainly because derivatives of all kinds are unregulated.

These instruments were unregulated on the theory, of which Greenspan was the chief proponent, that regulation would stifle innovation and wealth creation among the sophisticated players who dealt in derivatives. Even in the run-up to disaster, there was little attention paid to the issue of counterparty risk--that is, the possibility that the big issuers of these proto insurance policies would themselves be bankrupted by them.

Now, the regulations being contemplated today in congress so far do little to mitigate the risk that AIG will continue to act like my pal Vinny, who is as reckless and shiftless as me.

The reason for that is the too big to fail doctrine--which is what allowed AIG, Citi, Goldman, Lehman, and a few others to provide insurance without the necessary capital requirements. Imagine what you might do in their place: Knowing that if you ever went bankrupt, your debts would all be paid in full by taxpayers, how careful would you be about what bets you covered? And remember, every time you guarantee someone payment, you get money.

When you're right, you get paid. When you're wrong, you still get paid, and someone else pays on your behalf.

Now, the derivatives regulation bill is not designed to deal with the too big to fail doctrine, which has been enshrined as policy under the past two administrations.

Greenspan took a lot of hits for his unexamined faith in the unfettered, crook-rigged markets that delivered such unspeakable prosperity to so few over the past three decades. Now that he's examining things, he may finally be worth listening to.

Or not. My question these days is how to get out of a system that funnels my money to the rich..


9 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Terrific metaphor!

user-pic

Greenspan "finally worth listening to."

But now that he's no longer supporting the exponential growth of unregulated markets, who's listening?

user-pic
These instruments were unregulated on the theory, of which Greenspan was the chief proponent, that regulation would stifle innovation and wealth creation among the sophisticated players who dealt in derivatives.

Actually, Greenspan was amazingly spot on! They provided innovation to be sure. As for wealth creation? Even beyond their wildest dreams! It is a gift that keeps on giving, to be sure.

The rich are indeed different than you and me.

And when they run out of cash to keep the whole thing going, we simply fill the coffers once again and wish them a fare-thee-well.

It's great sport! I think I'll try it sometime, eh?

user-pic

That is the question Donal.

If we can't stop our government from supporting their gambling habit and bailing them out when they lose big time... then what? It seems to me that people may need to stop tying their money to the stock market if its going to be played this way.

Hopefully new regulations will help but I think we need a People's Czar of Common Sense overseeing the activities in DC and the Financial Industry.

And as much as we can I think we might want to look for the corporations and banks, etc. that have been in integrity or closest to it and reward them with our business.

user-pic

Keeping funds in reserve for such contingencies is one of the first rules of both banking and insurance. But with derivatives, it was not done, mainly because derivatives of all kinds are unregulated. Edward Ericson Jr.

It is not the character of derivatives -- or whether or not they are regulated -- which allowed AIG Financial Products to issue CDSs for which AIG (the parent company) was liable -- and in an amount far exceeding AIG's financial ability to make good on.

Rather, it was the incompetent supervision of AIG by its regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which allowed AIGFP to take down the parent company. A competent regulator -- and we apparently have none, not a one -- would have stepped in to stop Greenberg and Cassano from plundering AIG years ago.

user-pic

Hey! That guy should be Fed Chairman.

END THE FED

user-pic

Hey! Get a grip! All is well. From Huffington Post:

Adam Storch: SEC Hires 29-Year-Old Ex-Goldman Sachs Exec For Key Role

Seriously, you have to click on this just to see this child's photo (and the look of supreme self-confidence on his soft face). Do we really need to go from the ancient Greenspan to the wet-behind-the-ears Storch? Is there nothing in between? Is there anyone who isn't a Goldman-Sachs spy available for government work?

PS: The picture is on the front page; this is a link to the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/adam-storch-sec-hires-exg_n_323526.html

user-pic

It is theatrical in its absurdity. How many good citizens, with a great deal more experience, who are perfectly able to do this work are there?

user-pic

I hate all these motherfrickers.

So you really want to get a 6 percent return, or near that, but you really, really want to get your hundred-large back in 2015, even if I'm--as is statistically probable--in jail by then. Or on the lam.

But this little line is hilarious

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address