Understanding Derivatives

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Jun 17, 2010
29,048
5,463
48
The Bay Area Soviet
so.....

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit.

She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.

Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers' loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.

Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral!

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS.

These "securities" then are bundled and traded on international securities markets.

Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as "AA" "Secured Bonds" really are debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb!!!, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.

Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Heidi's 11 employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBOND prices drop by 90%.

The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the BOND securities.

They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, nondrinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

OK?
 
Still waiting for the 'understanding derivatives' part.
:lol:

How about this; Our politicians sold us out to International Banks that are fucking us to the tune of 1.5 Quadrillion dollars (1,500 Trillion dollars).
You mean derivatives such as titles, stock certificates, credit cards, checks and so forth don't you? Because all paper and plastic assets used in economic exchange are derivatives.

Derivatives ain't the problem. The problem are innumerate politicians and bureaucrats who use models that are so wrong that they become the patsy in the game. When it comes to economics almost all politicians almost everywhere are dumber than dog-squat which is acceptable but they have convinced themselves that they know this stuff which is the real hazard:

The efficient market hypothesis requires the price charts to look very slightly different than they are. (See Madelbrot's "(Mis)behavior of Markets" and be prepared to set a spell this ain't easy peasy.) So EMH/EMT was disproven in the 1960s but it is still used by some traders and almost all politicians. This has been causing avoidable financial crises since the 1960s and unavoidable financial crises prior to that.

The models for the "real" economy ignore the compounding of rounding error (Chaos, a branch of math that was discovered in 1961), age related spending (an analysis tool developed by the department of Commerce in the 1980s) and wealth effects.

So you can do away with whatever order derivatives you want but as long as the politicians are in the loop operating on unfounded certainty it won't do a bit of good.
 
Only problem I have with this is that the government marketed the drink bonds as sound.

And this is not really derivatives. A derivative is any investment based on another investment. This is the banking crisis is 2008.

And as a consequence, the town is as dry as Saudi Arabia.
 
Only problem I have with this is that the government marketed the drink bonds as sound.

And this is not really derivatives. A derivative is any investment based on another investment. This is the banking crisis is 2008.

And as a consequence, the town is as dry as Saudi Arabia.

The independent ratings agencies such as Moodys rated the drink bonds not the govt.
Essentially the distributor of the drink bonds?
 
Fannie and Freddie were/are quasi government agencies and Moody's rated them as US sovereign debt because they essentially were US sovereign debt.

I remember the Wall St. Journal howling about this back during the Carter administration. This tsunami was a long time coming, but when it did, it was quite the monster.
 
Moral of the story: we, the taxpayers, get screwed whenever government acts on their supposed good intentions.


ALL roads of this financial collapse lead right back to Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac.

Basically the federal government thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country using Fannie/Fredie. This while at the same time they were pressuring banks to lower lending requirements. No collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating along with sub-prime mortgages could get a loser a 400K custom home. Why? Because he had 310 million American co-signers.

Then the derivities market fully supported and defended by Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin--(Wall Street bankers started buying these mortgage backed securities) up as fast as they could to trade them in the mother of all casino's the hedge funds aka derivities market. All warnings of an imminent collapse were ignored by both congressional and senate banking boards.

Basically the federal government built a house of cards that collapsed leaving the American tax payer holding the bag.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com
 
Last edited:
AIG selling insurance on subprime tranches, Moody's et al making hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus rating of junk and mortgage houses pushing subprime loans so they could sell them is all the fault fannie/freddie helping poor minorities, right?
 
AIG selling insurance on subprime tranches, Moody's et al making hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus rating of junk and mortgage houses pushing subprime loans so they could sell them is all the fault fannie/freddie helping poor minorities, right?

When do the poor buy $400K custom homes? There are vacation beach properties that have been forclosed that were fannie mae guaranteed loans. These ASE's were orginally set up back in the 1970's so that poor people could buy LOWER INCOME HOUSING--and as the Federal Government always does expands their programs to include EVERYONE--in every income bracket--and regardless of the price of the property.

When they were originally set up--they wouldn't guarantee anything over $100K.
 
Last edited:
A new documentary by David Sington entitled “The Flaw” takes a look at the role Greenspan and his thinking had in the recent economic downturn. In 2008, Greenspan gave testimony before Congress regarding the role of federal regulators in the 2008 financial crisis. Greenspan testified that, in light of the events of the present financial crisis, he had found “a flaw” in the ideological model that lead him to act in the manner that he did.

What was that ideological model? Greenspan was once quoted as saying "I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We've tried regulation. None meaningfully worked."

The flaw in that model became overwhelmingly evident in recent years with the bursting of the housing bubble, and the near collapse of financial markets that was staved off only by government bailouts. The film argues that it was this ideology that allowed for those such as Greenspan to sit back and allow the wealth disparity to grow to obscene levels in the United States. These wide wealth disparities lead those at the bottom to become heavily indebted, while those at the top purchased this debt in the search for high-yielding assets, setting the stage for the housing and financial crises of late.

Greenspan's "Flaw" Highlighted in New Film | Economy In Crisis
 
We've been encouraging investing while discouraging working for decades.

Blme it on the Rs or blame it on the Ds, it really doesn't matter.

They've both encouraged this trend and they both continue to encourage this trend.
 
Still waiting for the 'understanding derivatives' part.

How about this; Our politicians sold us out to International Banks that are fucking us to the tune of 1.5 Quadrillion dollars (1,500 Trillion dollars).

No, fucking and derivatives are different things although they're alike in that there are more people who say they understand it than have actually done it.
 
Only problem I have with this is that the government marketed the drink bonds as sound.

And this is not really derivatives. A derivative is any investment based on another investment. This is the banking crisis is 2008.

And as a consequence, the town is as dry as Saudi Arabia.

The Government rated the bonds as sound? I thought Moody's, Standard & Poor and Fitch fixed "soundness" by rating bonds and debt securites.
 
Do any of you honestly think that the bank and loan companies accountants weren't smart enough to do the math and figure out that the ratings on this junk were way too high? Do you think that these accountants weren't privately talking with each other about how inflated the book values were for these things? I know damn well they were, but nobody wanted to stick their necks out and fight a battle with the CEO's and upper management that they were almost certain to lose. So they kept their mouths shut and let their bosses blow the companies money on securities they KNEW were going to be worthless sooner or later.

I'll be the first to admit that our current accounting system has a lot of flaws, and that it's very easy for a decent accountant to make the numbers say whatever you need them to say. However, I have a lot of first hand experience in warning company owners and management that their plans were a bad idea only to be ignored. CEO's and other senior managers tend to be optimists, and they don't like it when pessimistic accountants tell them that they're latest get rich scheme is a pipe dream. Our job is to provide them with good information, but if they want to ignore it most of the time you just have to smile and go along with it, even though you know it's going to end in disaster.
 
Interesting viewing Spectrum. Sort of illustrates my point about how optimistic bosses don't want to hear warnings from pessimistic department heads.
 

Forum List

Back
Top