I remenber that I have saw an article says that the US finance system has infalted our economy scale by at least 10 fold because the widespread use of leverage. So I just wondering in your example that bank A borrowed $90 billion using its $3 billion as colateral. Does this $90 billion actually exist (such as people's deposite in the bank) in our economy? I am worried that these money does not exist at all in the first place.
My second question is who made all these money during this crisis? All the home sellers between 2000-2006? They sold homes at inflated price to buyers who borrowed the money from the banks. If that is the case, the money should be still floating around in our economy (the money they made will be in bank, stock market or some other form). Why we had such a liqudation issue right now?
This is a good article, but I do not understand some of your calculations and numbers
You said that bank A has 3 billion net worth and borrowed (leveraged) 90 billion and get insurance from B, why B need only to pay 5 billion if A's 900 billion debts went to defalt?
dollar lost value is good news for chinese think how to use the export everything 、evrery one labour get so many the note is legal tender for all debts public and private.
maybe at last will export is get the paper and or the right of debits, last you will get money back, get more income lost more , more money in your hand, the more valuable was sent to who give you money, so it is best keep 0 in your, invest what you need you will neeed is best choice!
Totally wrong! bank buys cds, bank sells cds too. Every bank has risk limit. They can't do trades which is only one direction. The size of cds market is much bigger cos it includes all (buy/sell) trades, buy/sell cancels out each other. Also, not only subprime morgate is traded. any corporate/sovereign are traded too. I see CDS on China government everyday.
The real problem is CDO, a lot of CDO has many cds embedded (over hundreds of company/countries name). (with good/bad credit altogether). It has several tranche (Equity, subordinate, senior, super senior). The rating agency gives it very high ratings to senior and super senior tranche. Becos it is AAA rated, so insurance company, small bank all can buy it and treated it as a safe asset. But when defauls happens, all the senior/super senior are no longer AAA rated... all of sudden all these assets price drop.. and there is no market for it. All the value of these assets are subject to mark to market accounting treatment...
Totally wrong! bank buys cds, bank sells cds too. Every bank has risk limit. They can't do trades which is only one direction. The size of cds market is much bigger cos it includes all (buy/sell) trades, buy/sell cancels out each other. Also, not only subprime morgate is traded. any corporate/sovereign are traded too. I see CDS on China government everyday.
The real problem is CDO, a lot of CDO has many cds embedded (over hundreds of company/countries name). (with good/bad credit altogether). It has several tranche (Equity, subordinate, senior, super senior). The rating agency gives it very high ratings to senior and super senior tranche. Becos it is AAA rated, so insurance company, small bank all can buy it and treated it as a safe asset. But when defauls happens, all the senior/super senior are no longer AAA rated... all of sudden all these assets price drop.. and there is no market for it. All the value of these assets are subject to mark to market accounting treatment...
危言,your interest seems beyond financial, but politics,... wonder if we can find a way for talk. Chris (Silicon Valley, CA)
Tender 发表评论于
Well what I put there was just an example. In fact there are several levels of leveraging happening in the chain, while there are a lot more than just subprime mortgages involved.
CDS market is not regulated. No one is absolutely sure on its actaul size. It's like in a casino, the gamblers are betting against each other instead of the casino. The $62 trillion figure is from the International Swaps and Derivatives Association who had updated the number from $34.5 trillion a year ago.
回复Tender的评论:
Your answer is still not very clear. Assuming all sub mortages(250B or 300B0) default, tha's nothing compare to 62T. Where did the 61.7T go? Did they all default besides the sub mortage.
Tender 发表评论于
To: xiaozhang
1. The leverage increased the loss from the subprime mortgage. So 250B --> 7.5 trillion if leveraged by 30.
2. The ABCPs are securitized with very complex formulas that nobody understood. So the banks relied on the CDS to offset the risk while pursueing the profits (and bonuses). The insurance companies pick up the last tab by the wrong calculation on the probability of defaults with the "help" from the credit rating agencies. It's almost similar to the LTCM case before where everyone tried to jump onto the "Titanic" believing it won't sink (nobody thought Russia would default back then).
ECGG 发表评论于
same question as others: where does 62T come from if the total of sub mortgage is only a few hundred Billion? Did A, B, C....invest into somethihng else?
Also, one thing I still don't understand is: How can most the financial giants suddenly begin to play the risk game at the same time? If at least some of them are smart/responsible enough not to play the game (they sure understand the risk clearly), the bubble should not have been inflated. Is this a pure psychological issue or a reflection of any underlying systematic risk?
xiaozhang 发表评论于
It resolved my long term puzzle. Sounds like the winners in the game were the initial real estate investors (not the last bag holders), and B, C, D, E, F. They took way CASH before the card house collapsed, and are now sitting on Flordia beaches. I still have one question, though. Can the author or any expert help: I heard the total estimated subprime mortgate loss is only 250 Billon by itself. How come the CDS based on mortgages can have a market cap as high as 62000 Billon?