Another Taxpayer Bailout - Under Who's Authority?

I can't believe this crap - let Lehman fail and two days later bailout AIG with taxpayer funds. Who authorized this? Certainly not me - I think we should let them fail.

The main reason we're in this crisis today is because we've been living a lie - an economic facade caused by too much easy credit/money, followed by excessive fraud, corruption and manipulation... For too many years TPTB prevented us from taking the required harsh medicine (recessions) needed to cure our economic ills. Now, once again, we are delaying the inevitable and laying a larger (unpayable/unsolvable - except for default or hyperinflation) economic bill on our children - absolutely reprehensible!

Dammit folks - don't you think it's time to take the medicine?

Evening Reports:

The Fed will not comment on reports that it was considering placing AIG into conservatorship, saying it did not have the legal authority to do so.

So, policymakers were called into an emergency meeting tonight:

Attending the meeting on the Capitol Hill were Democratic Senate leaders that included
- Charles E. Schumer of New York
- Richard Durbin of Illinois
- Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
- Kent Conrad of North Dakota

The contingent of Republicans included
- Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader
- Richard Shelby of Alabama
- John Kyl of Arizona
- Judd Gregg of New Hampshire

House leaders included
- John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader
- Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama
- Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Members of the leaders’ staffs were asked to leave the meeting shortly after it began.

If the emergency talks fail, the collapse of AIG will be far worse than that of Lehman Brothers.

Many banks and investment funds in the US and around the world would lose their insurance cover at a time when defaults on payments are likely to rise





Insurance giant on a knife edge

The future of insurance giant AIG hangs in the balance as fears grow that it could be the next firm to fold in the wake of the credit crisis.

The state of New York has enabled the firm to access a "multi-billion dollar" finance plan in the short term, but it needs further funds to remain intact.

Analysts say the collapse of AIG would have a devastating impact on markets.

Senior banking executives are reportedly holding negotiations at the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, in an attempt to arrange a rescue bid.

But on Tuesday, Mr Paterson said AIG now had one day to raise another $80bn (£45bn) to save itself from collapse.

The plan appears to be for some form of private sector rescue, perhaps with backing from the Fed, says the BBC's economics correspondent Andrew Walker.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to bail out Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the US, at the weekend.

But our correspondent says he may deal differently with AIG if he feels the damage caused by its collapse to the wider financial system would be too great.



Fed Readies A.I.G. Loan of $85 Billion for an 80% Stake

In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve was close to a deal Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

All of A.I.G.’s assets would be pledged to secure the loan, these people said, and in return, the Fed would receive warrants that could be exchanged for an ownership stake. Stock of existing shareholders would be diluted, but not wiped out.

A person briefed on the matter said the agreement does not require shareholder approval.

The Fed’s action came after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, president of the Federal Reserve, went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday night to meet with House and Senate leaders. Mr. Paulson called the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, about 5 p.m. and asked for a meeting in the Senate leader’s office, which began about 6:30 p.m.

A.I.G.’s board approved the proposal at a meeting Tuesday night, the same individual said.

Without the help, A.I.G. was expected to be forced to file for bankruptcy protection.


Fed nears a deal to take over ailing AIG

The Federal Reserve is close to a deal to take an 80 percent stake in American International Group in exchange for an $85 billion loan, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

AIG’s failure could open the ugliest chapter yet of the financial meltdown.

“The glimmer of hope has turned into a ray of hope,” said the person, who asked not to be named because of the sensitive nature of the talks to help AIG.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke met with members of Congress to brief them on options the government is considering. The meeting ended without Bernanke and Paulson commenting.

Hoping to stave off what would be the ugliest chapter of the financial meltdown, AIG executives huddled with Fed officials and representatives from top banks at the New York Fed in downtown Manhattan to find the cash the huge insurer needs to stay in business.

One solution: A plan to have the government provide financial backing to ensure that AIG could secure a short-term loan from banks worth up to $100 billion to stay out of bankruptcy court, the person, who had direct knowledge of the talks, said.

He said the discussions had stalled because AIG did not have enough collateral to obtain a loan of that size. Both sides were trying to figure out how to close the gap between the amount AIG needs and the amount of collateral it has.

The person said it was increasingly likely the Fed would step in with taxpayer money.

Shareholders would be severely diluted by the bailout, which involves a bridge loan, according to sources. The government would receive warrants for most of AIG's equity in the bailout being negotiated. CNBC said the deal would give AIG incentive to sell its assets quickly to help pay off the bridge loan.

“This would mean another shareholder wipeout,” said David Ader, head of government bond strategy at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Conn.

Just days ago, Paulson said the government would not help Lehman Bros. with the kind of taxpayer-backed funding that JPMorgan Chase & Co. received six months ago to buy ailing Bear Stearns.

“They’re too big to fail. AIG touches too many people and too many companies globally, and it would be much more of a disorderly event if it went bankrupt than it was with Lehman,” said Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital in Rochester, New York.

Earlier, New York Governor David Paterson told CNBC that the insurer had “a day” to solve its problems. A failure would result in a “catastrophic problem” for the market, said Paterson, whose administration oversees regulation of AIG.

If AIG were to file for bankruptcy, billions of dollars of insurance contracts known as credit default swaps would likely be wiped out. Much of those losses would be absorbed by the companies holding the contracts, which were sold by AIG.

Investors Worry Over AIG's Future - DOW will be down 1,000 points tomorrow if AIG can't find solution

Interesting day

Today is my wife's birthday and we just got back from a family dinner out (did our part to stimulate the downturning LV economy tonight), so I really don't have much time to post up.

On that note, it was quite an interesting day on Wallstreet. A significant equities downturn was led by the financials once again... And the bad news was exacerbated by Treasury Secretary (and PPT leader) Paulson who added to the glum mood with a downbeat statement, saying it will be months before the problems end.

Note: For him to say such things, I imagine the looming "credit crunch phase-2" is worse than feared and he's making an attempt to prime the masses...

US STOCKS-Wall St ends lower, hammered by bank woes

NEW YORK, June 2 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended lower on Monday as financial shares slid on fears of more fallout from the mortgage crisis after Standard & Poor's cut debt ratings of three big securities companies and Wachovia, the fourth-largest U.S. bank, ousted its chief executive.


Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman Ratings Cut by S&P

Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. declined in New York trading after Standard & Poor's lowered credit ratings for the investment banks, saying they may have to book more writedowns on devalued assets.

Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest U.S. securities firm by market value, was cut one level to A+ from AA-, S&P said today in a report. Merrill Lynch, the third-biggest, was also cut one level to A from A+, as was Lehman Brothers, the fourth-biggest. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the largest of the group, was affirmed at AA-. The outlook on all four New York-based companies remains negative, S&P said.

The downgrades may make it harder for the banks to sell derivatives such as credit-default swaps that are tied to bonds or loans, said Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York. Single-A rated firms are less desirable as trading counterparties for fixed-income derivatives that extend longer than five years, he said.

``You'll see derivatives profitability drop off over a period of time,'' Hintz said of the three downgraded investment banks. ``We estimate somewhere around 1 percent to 1.5 percent of fixed- income revenues are at risk.''

The firms are also likely to have to post more collateral on the trades they've already made with other parties, raising their costs, Hintz said.

Collateral

In its last quarterly filing, Merrill said a one-notch downgrade of its credit rating would require it to post an additional $3.2 billion of collateral on over-the-counter derivative trades.

Morgan Stanley estimated in a regulatory filing that a single level downgrade would mean posting an extra $973 million. Lehman said a one level downgrade requires about $200 million of additional collateral.

Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Mary Claire Delaney declined to comment, as did Merrill spokeswoman Jessica Oppenheim and Lehman spokesman Mark Lane.

Morgan Stanley, Merrill and Lehman sank in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The cost of insuring against a default on each of the companies' debt jumped initially and then retreated later in the day.

Lehman fell $2.98, or 8.1 percent, to $33.83 in NYSE composite trading, while Merrill lost $1.30, or 3 percent, to $42.62. Morgan Stanley dropped $1.13, or 2.6 percent, to $43.10. Goldman declined $4.07, or 2.3 percent, at $172.34.

Writedowns

The S&P rating ``actions reflect prospects of continued weakness in the investment banking business and the potential for more write-offs, though not of the magnitude of those of the past few quarters,'' Tanya Azarchs, an S&P analyst, said today.

S&P suggested the banks may have to sell more stock to help offset the charges, according to Hintz. The report said financial institutions have raised too much capital in the form of so-called hybrid securities, exceeding S&P's limits on such instruments.

``The risk of further equity dilution probably has gone up,'' Hintz said.

The biggest banks and securities firms have booked about $387 billion of writedowns and credit losses since the beginning of last year, as the collapse of the subprime mortgage market prompted a contraction in credit markets worldwide. So far, the firms have raised about $270 billion of capital.

`Negative Outlooks'

S&P revised its outlook on Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to negative. Citigroup Inc. was taken off review for a downgrade and given a negative outlook, while Wachovia Corp. was placed on review for a downgrade.

Wachovia shares fell to the lowest level since July 1995 after the bank ousted Chief Executive Officer Kennedy Thompson today, signaling the company may report a second-quarter loss.

``The outlooks on the large financial institutions sector in the U.S. are now predominantly negative,'' S&P said in today's statement.

Best regards
Randy

Busy Day for Economic News

Existing home sales fall in March

Sales of existing homes fell in March, the seventh drop in the past eight months, as the spring sales season got off to a rocky start.

The median price of a home was down compared with a year ago, and some economists predicted home prices could keep falling for many more months given all the troubles weighing on housing, from a severe credit crunch to a rising tide of foreclosures.

The median price of a home sold last month was $200,700, a decline of 7.7 percent from a year ago and the seventh consecutive year-over-year price drop. It was also the second biggest decline following a record 8.4 percent drop in February. These records go back to 1999.

Patrick Newport, an economist with Global Insight, said he believed existing home sales would keep declining for another six months, with home prices falling well into 2009 given all the headwinds facing the housing market, including sinking consumer sentiment.

Yale economist Robert Shiller, who developed one of the widely followed gauges of home prices, said in a speech Tuesday that home prices, which have already fallen about 15 percent from their peak in 2006, may fall further than the 30 percent drop experienced during the Great Depression of the 1930s, so far the biggest decline in home prices in the country.

"Basically we are in uncharted territory," Shiller said, noting that the 85 percent rise in home prices from 1997 to 2006 after adjusting for inflation had represented the biggest housing boom in U.S. history, so the fall in prices could be just as historic.

"It will be a long and painful end to the housing downturn because it will take a lot more price cutting to work off all of the inventory that is out there".

The inventory of unsold homes rose 1 percent in March to 4.06 million homes, representing a 9.9 month supply at the current sales pace, as rising foreclosures dump more homes on the market.


Supply Scare Sends Oil Toward $120

Oil was flirting with $120 on Tuesday, driven by a familiar theme: overseas supply concerns.

By late afternoon, light sweet crude for May delivery was up 13 cents to $119.50 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Oil's rise wasn't the result of oil alone, as the dollar weakened further and the National Association of Realtors reported a drop in both home sales and prices.

At the pump, the average price of a gallon of regular gas rose 0.8 cents Tuesday to a record $3.511, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Although gas prices follow moves made by oil, gas is also being affected by falling supplies that comes with a seasonal switch made by refiners.

The high cost of oil has been drowning the highly oil-dependent airline industry. Airline stocks plunged Tuesday, after United Airlines parent UAL dropped the biggest earnings bombshell of the day, reporting a whopping first-quarter loss of $4.45 a share. United revealed plans to rein in costs in an effort to temper the impact of spiking jet fuel prices.

AirTran also announced that soaring fuel prices pushed it into the red during the first quarter, and kept it from enacting its expansion plans.


Euro breaks through $1.60 as dollar slumps to record low

The euro roared to another record high Tuesday, crossing $1.60 for the first time ever after a pair of European Central Bank governors said high inflation may cause the bank to raise interest rates. The U.S. dollar also fell against the Japanese yen and the British pound.

The euro rose as high as $1.6018, more than a penny above the $1.5916 it bought late Monday. The 15-nation currency, which was introduced in 1999, has traded as low as 82 cents. It has surged recently, rising 20 cents against the dollar in just five months and 10 cents in just two months.

The dollar has been weighed down by a combination of gloomy U.S. economic data and high European inflation — fueling expectations that the Fed will cut interest rates yet again while the European Central Bank will leave rates unchanged.


California home foreclosures climb as risky loans sour

Foreclosure proceedings against California homeowners jumped by more than 140 percent in the first quarter compared to a year ago, the result of risky loans during boom times, a real estate research firm said Tuesday.

Most loans that went into default originated between August 2005 and October 2006, according to DataQuick Information Systems, which said the market was shaking off its "'loans-gone-wild' activity" during that time.

Lenders sent homeowners 113,676 default notices from January through March, up 143.1 percent from 46,760 during the same period of 2007 and up 39.4 percent from 81,550 during the last three months of 2007.

The first quarter numbers marked the highest foreclosure level since DataQuick began keeping track in 1992.

Default notices hit their highest levels in nearly all of California's 58 counties, but Los Angeles County was just shy of its peak in the first quarter of 1996, DataQuick said.

One of every three resale homes sold in California from January through March had been foreclosed at some point during the previous year, up from 3.2 percent a year earlier, DataQuick said.


And I saved the best article for last:

Commercial Banks Heading for Huge Derivatives Losses- Credit Crisis Turning into Credit Armageddon (Click link above for entire article--snippets below)

While most investors are focused on the latest stock market rally, hidden from view is a monumental change that few recognize and fewer understand: Unprecedented amounts of old debts are coming due in America, and many are not getting refinanced.

Even worse, borrowers are going into default, lenders are taking huge losses, and outstanding loans are turning to dust.

The numbers are large; the government's response is equally massive. So before you look at one more stock quote or any other news item, I think it behooves you to understand what this means and what to do about it ...

First, the Federal Reserve is reporting a big contraction in short-term debts.

This is not a mere “slowdown” in new lending, which would be relatively routine. This is an actual reduction in the short-term loans outstanding, which is anything but routine ... which implies a rupture in the nation's credit spigots ... and which could deliver a new shock to the U.S. economy.

If this represented a planned and voluntary effort by lenders to begin trimming America's debt excesses, it might actually be a good thing.

But that's not the case here, not even close. Rather, this debt reduction is almost exclusively forced on lenders by the pressure of events — the plunging value of mortgages, the surging defaults by debtors, and the huge losses that have caught both banks and regulators off guard.

Second, the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is reporting havoc in the derivatives market.


In recent decades, derivatives have grown far beyond any semblance of reason. But in its latest report , the OCC reveals that in the fourth quarter of 2007 ...

- For the first time in history, the notional value of derivatives held by U.S. commercial banks plunged dramatically — by $8 trillion ...

- For the first time in history, U.S. banks suffered a massive overall loss on their derivatives — $9.97 billion, and, again ...

- These numbers do not yet reflect this year's disasters at Bear Sterns and other institutions.

The OCC's chart below illustrates the magnitude and drama of the decline:

The chart shows that, until the third quarter of last year, U.S. commercial banks had been making consistent profits from their derivatives quarter after quarter.

Their total revenue from these and related transactions (red line) never dipped into negative territory ... rarely suffered a significant decline ... and was even making brand new highs through the first half of 2007.

Then, suddenly, in the fourth quarter of last year, we witnessed a landmark game-changing event: For the first time ever, U.S. commercial banks lost big money in derivatives in the aggregate ( as you can plainly see by the sharp nosedive of the red line).

Again, if this were part of a planned retreat by the banks to more prudent trading approaches, it would be a positive. But it's anything but!

Indeed, the OCC specifically states in its report that the sudden and unusual reduction in derivatives was due entirely to the turmoil in the credit markets.

And ironically, nearly all of that turmoil was concentrated in “credit swaps” (blue line in the chart) — the one sector that was designed to protect investors from this precise situation.

These credit swaps were supposed to act as insurance policies that big banks and others bought to help cover their risk in the event of defaults and failures. But they're not working out as planned: Just in the fourth quarter, U.S. banks had a net loss (after all profitable trades) of $11.8 billion on credit swaps alone, according to the OCC.

Those losses helped wipe out all the profits they made in other derivatives, leaving a net overall loss of $9.97 billion.

Third, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that this crisis is barely ONE-THIRD over!

The Bottom Line for You Right Now

First, whether the stock market goes up or down in the near term, this crisis is far from over — and it's likely to get a lot worse.

Second, credit is already scarcer and is probably going to be even harder to get as this crisis progresses.

Bottom line: If you're looking forward to a future day when you can buy properties at bargain prices, don't count on doing so with a lot of borrowed money. Instead, be prepared to put up substantial amounts of cash.

Third, some banks won't survive this crisis.

Click here for the rest of this superb article

Randy

Derivatives -- the new 'ticking bomb'

The very complex financial instruments called derivatives (identified by Warren Buffet as financial weapons of mass destruction) are used by markets to hedge bets, and their use/popularity has exploded over the last 10 years.

Today, the world is awash with these weapons of mass destruction and hundreds of TRILLIONS (yes, that was not a typo) of these bets are so over-utilized and intertwined throughout the various financial markets, hedging one’s bets against losses, that no one really understands the true impact of any one loss against another and the daisy chain effect caused by simultaneous losses -- many with the same hedges/bets.

Problem is: we’re now starting to find out... As the housing bubble bursts, the financial world is swiftly realizing that their hedges/insurance bets on losses/gains (derivatives) were also used by everyone else and when the financial truth eventually gets out, the losses will be absolutely staggering -- there is absolutely no way anyone cand get paid.


Derivatives the new 'ticking bomb'

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "Charlie and I believe Berkshire should be a fortress of financial strength" wrote Warren Buffett. That was five years before the subprime-credit meltdown.

"We try to be alert to any sort of mega-catastrophe risk, and that posture may make us unduly appreciative about the burgeoning quantities of long-term derivatives contracts and the massive amount of uncollateralized receivables that are growing alongside. In our view, however, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal."

That warning was in Buffett's 2002 letter to Berkshire shareholders. He saw a future that many others chose to ignore. The Iraq war build-up was at a fever-pitch. The imagery of WMDs and a mushroom cloud fresh in his mind.

Also fresh on Buffett's mind: His acquisition of General Re four years earlier, about the time the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund almost killed the global monetary system. How? This is crucial: LTCM nearly killed the system with a relatively small $5 billion trading loss. Peanuts compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars of subprime-credit write-offs now making Wall Street's big shots look like amateurs.

Buffett tried to sell off Gen Re's derivatives group. No buyers. Unwinding it was costly, but led to his warning that derivatives are a "financial weapon of mass destruction." That was 2002.

Derivatives bubble explodes five times bigger in five years
Wall Street didn't listen to Buffett. Derivatives grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion to $516 trillion by 2007. The new derivatives bubble was fueled by five key economic and political trends:

1. Sarbanes-Oxley increased corporate disclosures and government oversight
2. Federal Reserve's cheap money policies created the subprime-housing boom
3. War budgets burdened the U.S. Treasury and future entitlements programs
4. Trade deficits with China and others destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar
5. Oil and commodity rich nations demanding equity payments rather than debt

In short, despite Buffett's clear warnings, a massive new derivatives bubble is driving the domestic and global economies, a bubble that continues growing today parallel with the subprime-credit meltdown triggering a bear-recession.

Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy.

To grasp how significant this five-fold bubble increase is, let's put that $516 trillion in the context of some other domestic and international monetary data:

U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion
U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion
Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion
U.S. government's maximum legal debt is $9 trillion
U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion
World's GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion
Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion
Total value of the world's real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion
Total value of world's stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion
BIS valuation of world's derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion
BIS 2007 valuation of the world's derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion

Moreover, the folks at BIS tell me their estimate of $516 trillion only includes "transactions in which a major private dealer (bank) is involved on at least one side of the transaction," but doesn't include private deals between two "non-reporting entities." They did, however, add that their reporting central banks estimate that the coverage of the survey is around 95% on average.

Also, keep in mind that while the $516 trillion "notional" value (maximum in case of a meltdown) of the deals is a good measure of the market's size, the 2007 BIS study notes that the $11 trillion "gross market values provides a more accurate measure of the scale of financial risk transfer taking place in derivatives markets."

Bubbles, domino effects and the 'bad 2%'

However, while that may be true as far as the parties to an individual deal, there are broader risks to the world's economies. Remember back in 1998 when LTCM's little $5 billion loss nearly brought down the world's banking system. That "domino effect" is now repeating many times over, straining the world's monetary, economic and political system as the subprime housing mess metastasizes, taking the U.S. stock market and the world economy down with it.

This cascading "domino effect" was brilliantly described in "The $300 Trillion Time Bomb: If Buffett can't figure out derivatives, can anybody?" published early last year in Portfolio magazine, a couple months before the subprime meltdown. Columnist Jesse Eisinger's $300 trillion figure came from an earlier study of the derivatives market as it was growing from $100 trillion to $516 trillion over five years. Eisinger concluded:

"There's nothing intrinsically scary about derivatives, except when the bad 2% blow up." Unfortunately, that "bad 2%" did blow up a few months afterwards, even as Bernanke and Paulson were assuring America that the subprime mess was "contained."

Bottom line: Little things leverage a heck of a big wallop. It only takes a little spark from a "bad 2% deal" to ignite this $516 trillion weapon of mass destruction. Think of this entire unregulated derivatives market like an unsecured, unpredictable nuclear bomb in a Pakistan stockpile. It's only a matter of time.

World's newest and biggest 'black market'

The fact is, derivatives have become the world's biggest "black market," exceeding the illicit traffic in stuff like arms, drugs, alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, stolen art and pirated movies. Why? Because like all black markets, derivatives are a perfect way of getting rich while avoiding taxes and government regulations. And in today's slowdown, plus a volatile global market, Wall Street knows derivatives remain a lucrative business.

Recently Pimco's bond fund king Bill Gross said "What we are witnessing is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August." In short, not only Warren Buffett, but Bond King Bill Gross, our Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America's leaders can't "figure out" the world's $516 trillion derivatives.

Why? Gross says we are creating a new "shadow banking system." Derivatives are now not just risk management tools. As Gross and others see it, the real problem is that derivatives are now a new way of creating money outside the normal central bank liquidity rules. How? Because they're private contracts between two companies or institutions.

BIS is primarily a records-keeper, a toothless tiger that merely collects data giving a legitimacy and false sense of security to this chaotic "shadow banking system" that has become the world's biggest "black market."

That's crucial, folks. Why? Because central banks require reserves like stock brokers require margins, something backing up the transaction. Derivatives don't. They're not "real money." They're paper promises closer to "Monopoly" money than real U.S. dollars.

And it takes place outside normal business channels, out there in the "free market." That's the wonderful world of derivatives, and it's creating a massive bubble that could soon implode.

Comments? Yes, we want to hear your thoughts. Tell us what you think about derivatives: as "financial weapons of mass destruction;" as a "shadow banking system;" as a "black market;" as the next big bubble dangerously exposing us to that unpredictable "bad 2%."


Another fantastic article sums up the derivatives issue quite well:

Empire of Debt I: The Great Unraveling Begins

Here is an analogy. Let's say you are offered a chance to play roulette, a very risky game of chance, but with an option for insurance which guarantees you will suffer no more than a tiny loss.

Let's say you place a $10 bet, in the hopes of winning $100. Your "insurance"--what we call a hedge, as in "hedging your bets"--costs only $1. Thus you can gamble $10, with a chance of winning as much as $100, and your loss is limited to a mere $1--the cost of your hedge. If you lose the $10, the other side of the hedge trade--whoever took your $1--will give you $10. Life is good, n'est pas?

Note what this hedge does: it makes you believe a high-risk game can be played at almost no risk. But alas, the game is inherently risky, and the reduction of risk is ultimately illusory: you can't change roulette into a low-risk gamble.

Since this is such a low-risk bet, you are soon gambling, say $100 billion. And why not? The hedges are so cheap! Abd everything goes swimmingly until the day you lose the $100 billion. Ah, bad luck, Mate; but no worries, you turn to the other side of your hedge and politely request your $100 billion.

Oops--that guy just lost his bets, too, and can't pay you. Now the risk of the underlying game is fully revealed; the entire hedge which made it all so "safe" is revealed as a house of cards which depends on all the other players being able to pay off their bets. Once they can't, well, as the saying goes, all bets are off.

To hide your immense losses, you continue to claim your bet is still worth $100 billion. Since you aren't required to "mark to market," i.e. reveal the market value of your bet, you stash the $100 billion loss in "Level 3" of your assets--a dark place where you can temporarily hide your worthless bets.

In other words, you bought an insurance policy to protect your risky bet on mortgage-backed securities and derivatives and now you find the insurer is belly-up and can't pay you.

If their bad bets were marked to market, Citicorp and Merrill Lynch would be declared insolvent. Why? Because they are insolvent--right now. The meaning of insolvency is straightforward: their losses exceed their capital. Recall that these firms list assets of $100 billion (or whatever) but their actual net capital is on the order of 2.5% - 5% --a mere sliver of their stated assets. In other words: a 5% loss of their stated assets wipes them out.

And once those leviathans fall, what other dominoes will they strike down?

Inherently risky bets were encouraged because they were "hedged." That's what Hedge funds do: place bets on both sides so they collect gains whether the markets go up or down. But the risks of the gamble didn't really change; the introduction of low risk to a high-risk bet was an illusion.

The whole risk-management model depends on somebody being able to pay off the hedge. If they can't-- the game is over. the game is now over, and the players shuffling losses can only last a few more days or weeks.

The game is over for other fundamental reasons, too. The U.S. "prosperity" of the past five years has depended on one thing and one thing alone: cheap, easy borrowing, by consumers, home buyers, businesses, gamblers/bankers and government--cheap easy credit for everyone.

This was funded by capital inflows of billions each and every day. Foreigners poured trillions into U.S. markets, buying up risky mortgage-backed securities, supposedly "safe" U.S. Treasuries, and U.S. stocks, bonds and derivatives.

Now as the Fed and the Treasury destroy the dollar's value, foreign owners of dollar-denominated assets are seeing their wealth decimated. That "safe" Treasury you bought in 2002? It's down 30% as the dollar has been depreciated. You're underwater so deep you'll never make that money back.

And how about all those Yankee CDOs, MBS, interest-swaps and other exotic derivatives which Yankee ingenuity invented and sold to you as low-risk, high yield investments? They're mostly worthless now. You lost most of your money in a "safe investment." How anxious are you now to buy more Yankee "investments" denominated in the sinking dollar?

There goes the capital inflows which have funded our profligacy. They're gone, and not coming back. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson are busy destroying the dollar with interest-rate cuts, fueling runaway inflation as they flail mightily to save their banking buddies--but they can't succeed. Making more debt available to bankrupt entities, be they investment bankers or homeowners, solves nothing. It's called "putting good money after bad," and it simply guarantees ever-larger losses.

Allow me to sum it up: the money's lost, folks. You can't borrow more and pretend you made the money back. All those trillions in bad debt and derivatives are already lost. The Ministry of Propaganda is in a tizzy, trying to mask the meltdown and offer up a facade of normalcy. But the money's already lost.

Will it be contained to the U.S.? Why should it? The bad debt is everywhere. And the spending spree all that borrowing unleashed washed over the entire globe. Now that Americans can't borrow any more, the spending dries up--and so does the global "prosperity" built on an Empire of Debt.

EMPIRE OF DEBT I

Though I don’t post very often (full-time job and family), every day I try to read various opinions regarding geopolitics, financial markets, the housing debacle, banking issues and the swiftly approaching credit/financial crisis (of which the masses, fed by daily mainstream propaganda, are completely oblivious).

Anyway, one of the many folks who I regularly follow is Charles Hugh Smith-—a superb writer with a knack for simplifying various complex economic issues... Well, today I ran across one of his articles that I absolutely had to share, as it simplified the very complex financial instruments called derivatives (identified by Warren Buffet as financial weapons of mass destruction).

Derivative instruments are used by markets to hedge bets, and their use/popularity has exploded over the last 10 years. Today, the world is awash with these weapons of mass destruction and hundreds of TRILLIONS (yes, that was not a typo) of these bets are so over-utilized and intertwined throughout the various financial markets, hedging one’s bets against losses, that no one really understands the true impact of any one loss against another and the daisy chain effect caused by simultaneous losses of many with the same bet.

Problem is: we’re now starting to find out... As the housing bubble bursts, the financial world is swiftly realizing that their insurance bets on losses (derivatives) were also used by everyone else and the losses are so staggering, there is absolutely no way anyone can get paid.

Aah… I’m starting to get emotional and I’m pounding on the keyboard so I’ll just let you read the article for yourself... Enjoy!

(Caution: If you thought I was pessimistic, you ain’t seen nothing yet).

Empire of Debt I: The Great Unraveling Begins

Some readers have been concerned that my recent posts have been overly bleak or strident. Perhaps; but I sense the Great Unraveling of the Empire of Debt is finally upon us, and breathtaking losses could be revealed any day now.

You cannot properly anticipate the coming wealth destruction unless you understand that the entire model rests on financial instruments (derivatives) which mask and distort risk. Thanks to readers Cheryl A. and U. Doran, I read the best description of how derivatives are written and sold--and how they blow up: Fiasco: The Inside Story of a Wall Street Trader .

Here is an analogy. Let's say you are offered a chance to play roulette, a very risky game of chance, but with an option for insurance which guarantees you will suffer no more than a tiny loss.

Let's say you place a $10 bet, in the hopes of winning $100. Your "insurance"--what we call a hedge, as in "hedging your bets"--costs only $1. Thus you can gamble $10, with a chance of winning as much as $100, and your loss is limited to a mere $1--the cost of your hedge. If you lose the $10, the other side of the hedge trade--whoever took your $1--will give you $10. Life is good, n'est pas?

Note what this hedge does: it makes you believe a high-risk game can be played at almost no risk. But alas, the game is inherently risky, and the reduction of risk is ultimately illusory: you can't change roulette into a low-risk gamble.

Since this is such a low-risk bet, you are soon gambling, say $100 billion. And why not? The hedges are so cheap! Abd everything goes swimmingly until the day you lose the $100 billion. Ah, bad luck, Mate; but no worries, you turn to the other side of your hedge and politely request your $100 billion.

Oops--that guy just lost his bets, too, and can't pay you. Now the risk of the underlying game is fully revealed; the entire hedge which made it all so "safe" is revealed as a house of cards which depends on all the other players being able to pay off their bets. Once they can't, well, as the saying goes, all bets are off.

To hide your immense losses, you continue to claim your bet is still worth $100 billion. Since you aren't required to "mark to market," i.e. reveal the market value of your bet, you stash the $100 billion loss in "Level 3" of your assets--a dark place where you can temporarily hide your worthless bets.

In other words, you bought an insurance policy to protect your risky bet on mortgage-backed securities and derivatives and now you find the insurer is belly-up and can't pay you.

If their bad bets were marked to market, Citicorp and Merrill Lynch would be declared insolvent. Why? Because they are insolvent--right now. The meaning of insolvency is straightforward: their losses exceed their capital. Recall that these firms list assets of $100 billion (or whatever) but their actual net capital is on the order of 2.5% - 5% --a mere sliver of their stated assets. In other words: a 5% loss of their stated assets wipes them out.

And once those leviathans fall, what other dominoes will they strike down?

The financial catastrophe which will unfold within the next few weeks is fundamentally a gross mispricing of risk. Inherently risky bets were encouraged because they were "hedged." That's what Hedge funds do: place bets on both sides so they collect gains whether the markets go up or down. But the risks of the gamble didn't really change; the introduction of low risk to a high-risk bet was an illusion.

The whole risk-management model depends on somebody being able to pay off the hedge. If they can't-- the game is over. the game is now over, and the players shuffling losses can only last a few more days or weeks.

The game is over for other fundamental reasons, too. The U.S. "prosperity" of the past five years has depended on one thing and one thing alone: cheap, easy borrowing, by consumers, home buyers, businesses, gamblers/bankers and government--cheap easy credit for everyone.

This was funded by capital inflows of billions each and every day. Foreigners poured trillions into U.S. markets, buying up risky mortgage-backed securities, supposedly "safe" U.S. Treasuries, and U.S. stocks, bonds and derivatives.

Now as the Fed and the Treasury destroy the dollar's value, foreign owners of dollar-denominated assets are seeing their wealth decimated. That "safe" Treasury you bought in 2002? It's down 30% as the dollar has been depreciated. You're underwater so deep you'll never make that money back.

And how about all those Yankee CDOs, MBS, interest-swaps and other exotic derivatives which Yankee ingenuity invented and sold to you as low-risk, high yield investments? They're mostly worthless now. You lost most of your money in a "safe investment." How anxious are you now to buy more Yankee "investments" denominated in the sinking dollar?

There goes the capital inflows which have funded our profligacy. They're gone, and not coming back. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson are busy destroying the dollar with interest-rate cuts, fueling runaway inflation as they flail mightily to save their banking buddies--but they can't succeed. Making more debt available to bankrupt entities, be they investment bankers or homeowners, solves nothing. It's called "putting good money after bad," and it simply guarantees ever-larger losses.

Allow me to sum it up: the money's lost, folks. You can't borrow more and pretend you made the money back. All those trillions in bad debt and derivatives are already lost. The Ministry of Propaganda is in a tizzy, trying to mask the meltdown and offer up a facade of normalcy. But the money's already lost.

Will it be contained to the U.S.? Why should it? The bad debt is everywhere. And the spending spree all that borrowing unleashed washed over the entire globe. Now that Americans can't borrow any more, the spending dries up--and so does the global "prosperity" built on an Empire of Debt.

Please link to original site for the rest of his article: Empire of Debt I: The Great Unraveling Begins


Regards