Streep-tease del sistema-bund e compagnia-viet. MAGG. 1985 a (1 Viewer)

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
Metatarso ha scritto:
L'ultimo quote non esiste!

se nazionalizzano e tengono i bad loans in pancia allo stato fanno la fine dei giapini.. se nazionalizzano vendono e riliquidificano spingono al rialzo l'inflazione.... io penso che adotteranno la seconda scelta visto la scuola da cui proviene Bernanke.
 

Metatarso

Forumer storico
al sabato si batte la fiacca ? :D
sta facendo il giro del web, questo ottimo articoletto sul cuore della crisi, i CDS, una bomba da 62 trillioni...



The Real Reason Behind the Global Financial Crisis
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.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/96290-the-real-reason-behind-the-global-financial-crisis



l'articolo originale è qui, ma ora il sito è down:
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/18/credit-default-swaps/
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
Metatarso ha scritto:
al sabato si batte la fiacca ? :D
sta facendo il giro del web, questo ottimo articoletto sul cuore della crisi, i CDS, una bomba da 62 trillioni...



The Real Reason Behind the Global Financial Crisis
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.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/96290-the-real-reason-behind-the-global-financial-crisis



l'articolo originale è qui, ma ora il sito è down:
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/18/credit-default-swaps/

per dare a cesare quel che è di cesare bisogna dire che scrivere adesso dei CDS è troppo facile.. direi che Buffett come sempre la sapeva lunga già 5 anni fa....
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
Per definire meglio il discorso di ieri i margins trader cioè gli speculatori erano ieri short piu di quanto erano long nel picco della bolla tecnologica..

1221920403spxespeculatorsalribasso.jpg
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
gipa69 ha scritto:
Per definire meglio il discorso di ieri i margins trader cioè gli speculatori erano ieri short piu di quanto erano long nel picco della bolla tecnologica..

Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.it/forum/immagini/1221920403spxespeculatorsalribasso.jpg

e secondo me al contrario del 2000 si urla allo scandalo della manipolazione finanziaria così come nel 2000 si urlava alla ricerca di un intervento dei banchieri a difesa dei mercati che crollavano perchè molti operatori di piccole dimensioni in questi anni hanno scoperto l'operatività short ed il sogno dell'implosione del sistema attraverso un click era euforizzante mentre nel 2000 l'esposizione era long nel sogno collettivo di un mondo evoluto attraverso i progressi tecnologici.

Ma le autorità intervengono sempre a salvare i big ..... mai gli small.
Solo quando gli interessi dei big sono a rischio allora le autorità varano misure d'urgenza.
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
F4f mi ha chiesto perchè il dollaro non si è indebolito dopo queste news che apparentemente sono negative per il dollaro.
Personalmente come detto ieri secondo me le iniezioni e bailout di questi giorni non sono inflazionistici ma mirano ad evitare la deflazione conseguente allla riduzione di valore di asset finanziari che prima venivano valutati 100 ed ora 30.
Nel lungo periodo però queste operazioni avranno impatti inflazionistici per diversi motivi per cui ora non mi dilungo e dovrebbero porre pressioni anche sui bond americani.

Al momento però il dollaro non ha seguito forse perchè la capitolazione degli short dollari è troppo recente... se si vedono i volumi della settimana scorsa forse si puo capire che la capitolazione degli short è avvenuta sul dollaro solo da poco per cui ci vorrà un po di tempo perchè rientrino nella stessa posizione con le stesse dimensioni.
Allo stesso tempo dal punto di vista macro è probabile che se da una parte i bailout hanno natura inflazionistica nel lungo periodo le considerazioni recessive di breve/medio termine hanno ancora il sopravvento per cui il mercato prima vuol vedere qualche dato macro che segnali un recupero dell'economia globale prima di cominciare a mettere in piedi i carry che hanno comunque bisogno di una volatilità dei trend molto meno marcata per potersi costituire.
Ricordiamoci che storicamente una crescita economica meno consistente ha portato nel sistema valutario attuale a una riduzione dei dollari in circolazione al di fuori degli stati uniti e quindi tendenzialmente ad una minore domanda di dollari e quindi successivamente ad una sua forza relativa.
E' queste considerazioni che vanno superate o con una ripartenza dell'economia globale oppure con una debacle complessiva dell'economia USA che faccia saltare il sistema monetario attuale.
 

gipa69

collegio dei patafisici
gipa69 ha scritto:
F4f mi ha chiesto perchè il dollaro non si è indebolito dopo queste news che apparentemente sono negative per il dollaro.
Personalmente come detto ieri secondo me le iniezioni e bailout di questi giorni non sono inflazionistici ma mirano ad evitare la deflazione conseguente allla riduzione di valore di asset finanziari che prima venivano valutati 100 ed ora 30.
Nel lungo periodo però queste operazioni avranno impatti inflazionistici per diversi motivi per cui ora non mi dilungo e dovrebbero porre pressioni anche sui bond americani.

Al momento però il dollaro non ha seguito forse perchè la capitolazione degli short dollari è troppo recente... se si vedono i volumi della settimana scorsa forse si puo capire che la capitolazione degli short è avvenuta sul dollaro solo da poco per cui ci vorrà un po di tempo perchè rientrino nella stessa posizione con le stesse dimensioni.
Allo stesso tempo dal punto di vista macro è probabile che se da una parte i bailout hanno natura inflazionistica nel lungo periodo le considerazioni recessive di breve/medio termine hanno ancora il sopravvento per cui il mercato prima vuol vedere qualche dato macro che segnali un recupero dell'economia globale prima di cominciare a mettere in piedi i carry che hanno comunque bisogno di una volatilità dei trend molto meno marcata per potersi costituire.
Ricordiamoci che storicamente una crescita economica meno consistente ha portato nel sistema valutario attuale a una riduzione dei dollari in circolazione al di fuori degli stati uniti e quindi tendenzialmente ad una minore domanda di dollari e quindi successivamente ad una sua forza relativa.
E' queste considerazioni che vanno superate o con una ripartenza dell'economia globale oppure con una debacle complessiva dell'economia USA che faccia saltare il sistema monetario attuale.

quindi la posizione migliore sui cambi per un opzionista è secondo me oggi essere short di volatilità.... :cool:
 

PILU

STATE SERENI
Buona sera .. dalla bozza delle legge che dovrebbe essere approvata si estende il limite di disavanzo a 11.315.000.000.000 ...se ho capito bene ..

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Alto