Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
vigilant wrote:Sorry for the repost then. I have been following the thread but it is getting long and I forgot it had already been addressed.....
ACA has long been a convenient dumping ground in which major subprime securitizers like Bear Stearns (BSC), Citigroup (C), Merrill Lynch (MER) and some 25 other prominent dealers could pitch billions of dollars of risky obligations for modest premiums. That let them gussy up their balance sheets and shift any potential mark-to-market hits to ACA.
If ACA Capital were to founder, more than $69 billion worth of CDOs, including the $25 billion in subprime paper, would come rumbling back to the Wall Street banks, and likely with heavy attendant losses.
That's why Wall Street has continued to do a brisk business with the beleaguered firm. In the third quarter, ACA insured some $7 billion of subprime collateralized-debt obligations. Even if the company survives for only another couple of quarters, that would stave off the recognition of billions of dollars of losses.
Europe Suspends Mortgage Bond Trading Between Banks (Update3)
By Esteban Duarte and Steve Rothwell
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- European banks agreed to suspend trading in the $2.8 trillion market for mortgage debt known as covered bonds to halt a slump that has closed the region's main source of financing for home lenders.
The European Covered Bond Council, an industry group that represents securities firms and borrowers, recommended banks withdraw from trades for the first time in its three-year history until Nov. 26. Banks are still obliged to provide prices to investors, according to the statement today.
Banks including Barclays Capital, HSBC Holdings Plc and UniCredit SpA took the step as investors shun bank debt on concern lenders face more mortgage-related losses than the $50 billion disclosed. Abbey National Plc, the U.K. lender owned by Banco Santander SA, became the third financial company to cancel a sale of covered bonds in a week as investors demanded banks pay the highest interest premiums on covered bonds in five years.
``We are in a deteriorating situation,'' Patrick Amat, chairman of the Brussels-based ECBC and chief financial officer of mortgage lender Credit Immobilier de France, said in a telephone interview. ``A single sale can be like a hot potato. If repeated, this can lead to an unacceptable spread widening and you end up with an absurd situation.''
`A single sale can be like a hot potato. If repeated, this can lead to an unacceptable spread widening and you end up with an absurd situation.''
A second parallel is what today we would call securitization of credit. Some people think this is a recent innovation, but in fact it was the core technique that made possible the dangerous practices of the 1920's. Banks would originate and repackage highly speculative loans, market them as securities through their retail networks, using the prestigious brand name of the bank -- e.g. Morgan or Chase -- as a proxy for the soundness of the security. It was this practice, and the ensuing collapse when so much of the paper went bad, that led Congress to enact the Glass-Steagall Act, requiring bankers to decide either to be commercial banks -- part of the monetary system, closely supervised and subject to reserve requirements, given deposit insurance, and access to the Fed's discount window; or investment banks that were not government guaranteed, but that were soon subjected to an extensive disclosure regime under the SEC.
Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s -- lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas.
Revealed: massive hole in Northern Rock's assets
Investigation shows £53bn of mortgages owned by off shore company
Ian Griffiths
The Guardian Friday November 23 2007
Fresh doubts emerged last night about Northern Rock's ability to repay the £23bn of taxpayers' money it has been loaned by the Bank of England.
A Guardian examination of Northern Rock's books has found that £53bn of mortgages - over 70% of its mortgage portfolio - is not owned by the beleaguered bank, but by a separate offshore company.
The same investigation reveals just how vulnerable the bank is to a cooling property market and demonstrates the scale of Northern Rock's exposure to mortgages where customers have borrowed heavily against their homes.
The mortgages are now owned by a Jersey-based trust company and have been used to underpin a series of bond issues to raise cash for Northern Rock. It means the pool of assets available to provide collateral for Northern Rock's creditors, including the Bank of England, is dramatically reduced, calling into question government claims that taxpayers' money is safe.
This week the chancellor, Alistair Darling, told parliament taxpayers' money was safeguarded. "Bank of England lending is secured against assets held by Northern Rock. These assets include high quality mortgages with a significant protection margin built in and high quality securities with the highest quality of credit rating," he said.
The first tranche of the Bank's emergency lending to Northern Rock in September has been secured against specific assets. But the second tranche is secured only by a more general floating charge, which would mean the Bank would be vying with other creditors for repayment if Northern Rock failed. It is not clear how much money was loaned in each tranche, but the emergency loans are thought to have been for about £11bn each.
A number of bidders have expressed an interest in buying Northern Rock but the offers have been below the stock market price of the shares suggesting there are concerns about the bank's underlying value. The Guardian's analysis of £58bn or 75% of Northern Rock's residential mortgage portfolio reveals the extent of exposure and suggests the company is suffering from rising arrears and repossessions.
Among the findings are:
· Mortgage loans of over 90% of the purchase price of a house have soared to £16bn, from £2.7bn, in the space of three years.
· Loans have exceeded the value of the property on nearly 2,500 mortgages, with a value of £263m. Three years ago, the figure was just £13m on 158 properties.
· 10,000 Northern Rock customers are a month or more in arrears on their mortgages, on loans worth nearly £1.2bn. At the end of 2003, there were only 2,500 in the same difficulties, with mortgages worth £168.8m.
· In 2003 Northern Rock repossessed 80 properties. Last year more than 1,000 properties were repossessed. By the end of September this year 912 properties had already been repossessed.
A rising loan to value ratio leaves Northern Rock exposed to any slump in house prices. Any property market crash would also have an impact on the company's arrears position.
The Guardian analysis has also discovered that Northern Rock has admitted being in breach of the conditions of the securities it has sold through its Jersey-based Granite Master Issuer, the company which packages and sells mortgage backed securities, but it has decided to ignore the breach. The breach occurred in September when Fitch, one of the main ratings agencies, downgraded Northern Rock's long-term credit ratings.
Richard Murphy, a forensic accountant and director of Tax Research, who has followed the Northern Rock affair and scrutinised its relationship with Granite, is concerned that the division between Northern Rock and Granite has been blurred, creating uncertainty over its mortgage portfolio.
"This should be a concern for the Bank and the Treasury particularly if the emergency loans have actually been used to finance the activities of Granite rather than Northern Rock. It would be harder for the government to secure preferential treatment over other creditors if it is shown that the money was actually for Granite's benefit," he said.
QinetiQ sale made £107m for 10 top civil servants
· Managers' shares rose 20,000% on day of sale
· Ministry of Defence sold taxpayers short, NAO says
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday November 23, 2007
The Guardian
MPs and trade unions will today condemn the Ministry of Defence for allowing 10 senior civil servants to make "mind boggling" profits from the flotation of its research arm, QinetiQ.
The full scale of payouts is revealed by the National Audit Office (NAO) in a report which shows that shares owned by the civil servants rose in value by 20,000% on the day they went on the stockmarket. Another 245 senior managers made 14,400% profits on their shares. Ordinary workers received free share options worth £80 on the day.
The scale of largesse revealed in the report shows the top 10 people between them invested £540,000 of their own money in the company and saw this rise to £107.45m on the day Qinetiq was floated last year. Sir John Chisholm, who is non-executive chairman, saw his investment of £130,000 rise to £25.97m; Graham Love, chief executive, saw a £110,000 investment rise to £21.35m; Hal Kruth, group commercial manager saw a £70,000 investment rise to £13.88m; and Brenda Jones, marketing director, saw a £60,000 investment rise to £11.18m.
The report reveals that the senior people were able to help devise the incentive scheme which later gave them huge returns, a practice the NAO said must be banned in any future privatisation.
The report says the Carlyle Group, the US private equity firm which had taken a part share in QinetiQ, made a 786% profit on its £42m stake, which became worth £374m on the day of the sale. The NAO said there was no evidence that Carlyle, which was able to purchase a share of the company at a low valuation, used political influence.
The NAO says the ministry did not get enough money for the taxpayer when it sold its first stake to Carlyle. The Ministry of Defence contests this. The minister for defence equipment, Baroness Taylor, told the NAO the sale had "delivered excellent value for money, generating more than £800m for the taxpayer, while protecting UK defence and security interests".
Unions and MPs disagreed. Edward Leigh, Tory chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "QinetiQ's top managers ... won the jackpot. They got a mind-boggling return of almost 20,000% on their investments. This is more alarming when you learn that these managers sold the idea of a PPP to the department and that they were then allowed to negotiate their own incentive scheme. Nice work if you can get it."
Vince Cable, acting Liberal Democrat leader, said: "This deal didn't sell the family silver; it gave it away."
David Luxton, national secretary, for the union Prospect, said: "The highly geared share incentives introduced by the Carlyle Group in 2003 provided rich pickings for a few, at minimal personal risk, on the back of the innovation of the hard working scientists and engineers ... This is the unacceptable face of privatisation."
antiaristo wrote:.
The first tranche of the Bank's emergency lending to Northern Rock in September has been secured against specific assets.But the second tranche is secured only by a more general floating charge, which would mean the Bank would be vying with other creditors for repayment if Northern Rock failed.
slow_dazzle wrote:...the fact that the government might not be given preferred creditor status means those creditors owed money might start seizing assets in the form of property held as collateral. We were talking about this yesterday. I received a frosty reply or two because I even suggested that people might find creditors seizing property if a bank was not able to raise capital to pay them off. Is this your take on what might happen if NR cannot satisfy the investors?
slimmouse wrote: On Edit ; It would appear that I was wrong about who owns the bank - it was supposedly "nationalised" in 1946 - Except of course that this is itself little more than more smoke and mirrors, as is excellently surmised here;
http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/ ... /boe1.html
Here comes the hair in the soup. The Judge asked DB to show documents proving legal title to the 14 homes. DB could not. All DB attorneys could show was a document showing only an “intent to convey the rights in the mortgages.” They could not produce the actual mortgage, the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Charta of not longer.
Again why could Deutsche Bank not show the 14 mortgages on the 14 homes? Because they live in the exotic new world of “global securitization”, where banks like DB or Citigroup buy tens of thousands of mortgages from small local lending banks, “bundle” them into Jumbo new securities which then are rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or Fitch, and sell them as bonds to pension funds or other banks or private investors who naively believed they were buying bonds rated AAA, the highest, and never realized that their “bundle” of say 1,000 different home mortgages, contained maybe 20% or 200 mortgages rated “sub-prime,” i.e. of dubious credit quality.
Here is where the Ohio court decision guarantees that the next phase of the US mortgage crisis will assume Tsunami dimension. If the Ohio Deutsche Bank precedent holds in the appeal to the Supreme Court, millions of homes will be in default but the banks prevented from seizing them as collateral assets to resell. Robert Shiller of Yale, the controversial and often correct author of the book, Irrational Exuberance, predicting the 2001-2 Dot.com stock crash, estimates US housing prices could fall as much as 50% in some areas given how home prices have diverged relative to rents.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007
The Money/Credit Cycle....
I'm going to "spend" my ticker today talking about something that you're not taught in school, yet is critical to understanding where we are - and where we're headed in the markets.
That is the money and credit cycle.
Let us think for a moment about what money really is. Gold is often called "real money", with the implication that other things used as money aren't "real".
Yet money, in the simplest (and most correct) definition is simply "a medium of exchange."
Through the years feathers, bones, foodstuffs and jewels have been used as money.
But - how is money created? Clearly, money must be controlled somehow, right? Otherwise you could walk over to your closest copier and run some off for yourself..... as much as you'd like. That would anger people, don't you think?
The first thing to get your mind around is that money, credit and debt are all interchangeable. In the world of economists these are known as "fungible" - that is, interchangeable without limit.
Today, when you go to the store and swipe your debit card, you are actually spending credit.
Let's say you walk into a restaurant and eat lunch. At the instant you order, you are in debt for $10 - the cost of the lunch. When you pay with your debit card, you settle that debt by moving $10 worth of credit from your account at the bank to the account at the restaurant.
So far so good.
But - where did the $10 you spent come from?
It was created through credit - that is, debt!
Let's start with a world where there is no money but some people own land. With land I can grow a crop to feed my family, but I first must acquire some seeds. Joe down the street has seeds, but he does not have land. We would both like to eat.
Therefore, I issue a debt to Joe in exchange for some seeds; I create money! I give him a promise to pay him part of my crop if he will give me some seed. He does; what he holds in his hands is, in fact, money. I have created it out of thin air by putting myself in debt.
Now what's the problem with that? Well, what happens to Joe if there is a drought? He has given up his seeds, but there is no crop! He loses. That's called risk.
Because of this risk, he will charge me "interest". That is, he wants somewhat more than the value of his seeds to cover the chance that I will in fact produce nothing with them.
And from this - risk - we sow the seeds of what ultimately causes headaches for the monetary system.
Let's say that today you wish to buy a car. You go into a bank and get them to agree to issue you a loan to buy that car. Let's say the loan is for $20,000. You sign a contract promising to pay back the $20,000 plus a rate of interest, which is charged so that the bank is covered for the risk that you won't pay them, and the value of the car at that time might not be as much as you owe. The car is the "security" for the loan - if you fail to pay, they will come and repossess it.
You now have $20,000 in your pocket, and you purchase the car. (We'll get back to how the $20,000 came to be in a minute.)
If these were the only two transactions in the world, you would soon recognize a serious problem - there is only $20,000 in money in the world, but you owe more than $20,000! The interest you must pay means that you somehow must acquire more money than exists in the world over the life of that loan in order to pay it back.
There is only one solution to this problem - the amount of money in the world must increase.
So the government will just print some more, right? After all, the can do anything they want.
Uh, no. If the government were to do that then the value of all the money currently in existence would go down by the exact amount that they printed. You could pay your debt but the bank would be in serious trouble because the money they got paid back with would not be worth as much as the money they gave you!
So where did the money come from?
It was created by the bank because some people trusted THEIR wealth to the bank to "hold" it for them - that is, they deposited some funds with the bank, and through the system of fractional reserve banking, the bank was thus able to "create" a certain amount of credit for each dollar on deposit.
If that system was short-circuited by a "raw printing" of money by the government, this would result in everyone "upstream" of you being hosed!
This of course is not acceptable to anyone (except you!) - the bank and auto manufacturer, along with the bank's depositors, specifically, would shortly say "no way!" and remove their funds from that system, choosing instead to do something else with it.
While many people believe that raw printing of currency is how governments respond to the need for "more money" or "more liquidity", with the exception of dictatorships this simply doesn't happen.
Instead, more money is created not through direct inflation, but rather through the pledging of more assets - that is, the creation of more credit/debt!
If the government wants to spend more it issues more debt (Treasury Bills/Bonds) which are then sold into the market - with interest attached. Due to fractional reserve banking once those bonds are purchased the funds can then be lent out at a multiple of the money received.
But wait a minute........
Isn't there a limit to this?
Ah, now there's the rub.
THERE IS!
See, there are only so many assets available to pledge. While human industry creates more over time - that is, we get better productivity through innovation and technology - there is a natural limit to the pledging of assets.
What's worse, the growth of money required to be able to meet interest and principal demand is an ever-increasing function. The "power" of compound rates of return is the damnation of compound interest, and in this case, its working against the system as a whole.
When the limit is reached - that is, there are insufficient remaining owners of credit-worthy assets who will (or can!) pledge them in return for more credit (money) being issued to them the system will fail and reset.
This is what happened in the 1930s.
It should have happened after the Tech Wreck in 2000.
But it did not, because when the velocity of money slowed precipitously in the tech wreck and Greenspan followed that velocity down by cutting Fed Funds to 1%, he managed to entice homeowners into pledging their HOUSES as collateral for yet another round of "reflation" in credit!
So the "reset" was avoided - for a while.
But - you saw what happened.
House prices exploded upwards as credit standards were thrown out and anyone who had a pulse qualified for a huge mortgage. The house was thought of as "security", making the loan cheap.
Or was it?
What did the mortgage companies and banks that made these loans know?
Well, what do you think they knew? They sold those loans off into the marketplace, keeping only a little - or none - of the risk for themselves.
Why?
Because they know what likely lies ahead - a monetary system "reset"!
This "last phase" marks a desperate reach for one more group of "suckers."
It is this phase which precedes the reset as debt merchants realize that they are in fact granting credit (creating money) to people who do not really qualify for it and have a high risk of default. As a consequence they will do everything in their power to collect as much of the "spread" (interest) as they are able, but lay off as much of the risk of the "reset" (default) as they can.
"Securitization" can be an element of misleading people into funding debt that will never be repaid because it allows yet another cycle of "credit reflation" while the risk is laid off on those unwitting market participants.
While "securitization" has its place in the credit cycle, when regulation is intentionally ducked by the government or worse, lending limits such as the existing "23A" exemptions are used like heroin given to an addict, the depth of the "reset" to come is grossly enhanced and the number of individuals and organizations that take the pain from the default cycle to come is significantly increased.
Unfortunately the ever-growing interest payment monster is now running into the hard reality that we're just about out of pledgable assets to put behind more credit.
WE ARE NOW FACING A "RESET" IN THE SYSTEM!
What happens in a "reset"?
The rate of credit creation slows precipitously as the list of assets that can be pledged dwindles down.
The interest and principal payments due on existing debt get close to and ultimately exceed the amount of money in the system, as the rate of credit (money) creation slows.
Those who detect this while they still have money pay off their debts, (correctly) deducing that a "reset" is about to take place - and that cash (assets) will have value, while debt will be a millstone that will drag you underwater.
Those who are unable to pay off their debts will find that a contracting credit (money) supply leaves them with insufficient funds to pay their debts. Debt defaults at a rapidly increasing rate.
The creditors (who granted the credit) will repossess the assets pledged for the debt in lieu of payment, while the debtors are financially destroyed.
The destruction of outstanding credit via default shrinks the money supply further, and we go back to #1.
This continues until equilibrium is reestablished, and the cycle begins anew.
Does this sounds kinda like what's going on?
It should - because it is.
Housing loans are defaulting. This is not "contained" to subprime and cannot be. As these loans default at a rate far beyond what was originally envisioned they contract the total amount of money in the system. This then forces defaults in other classes of debt - credit cards, automobiles, and various sorts of commercial credit as the money in the system is insufficient to service the debt that is owed.
This cycle will continue until equilibrium is restored. The depths to which we must go before equilibrium is reached, and exactly when it will initiate, is not possible to know in advance, but that we absolutely are going to undergo this process is known with certainty!
Creditors will end up with all the assets that are pledged on debts that default. Debtors will end up broke.
This is a natural cycle and cannot be prevented; it is an inherent and necessary function of any financial system which involves return for risk (commonly known as interest), and it is not possible to have a lending system that does not compensate for risk!
Whether you're on a gold standard or not is IMMATERIAL, whether there is a Federal Reserve is IMMATERIAL.
This is not taught in school, but it damn well should be.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BASIC MATHEMATICS HERE.
Mathematics is the only TRUE science AND IT DOES NOT LIE.
How do you deal with this as a PRUDENT individual?
Bluntly, you should avoid debt to the maximum extent possible, especially long-term debt, because it is not possible to predict exactly when a "reset" will occur - but that resets WILL happen is a mathematical certainty.
For most people, avoiding all debt is simply unreasonable. But when you start to live your life in such a fashion that you are financing your standard of living with long-term obligations you are at severe risk of being bankrupted outright when a "monetary reset" occurs - and odds are, there will be one at some point during each of our lifetimes.
Obviously, governments desire to prevent "resets", because they are terribly disruptive to the economy. They destroy those who have chosen to employ leverage in their financial lives, both corporate and personal, almost without exception. They contract GDP severely as the monetary velocity slows precipitously, and cause huge ramps in unemployment. In extreme cases they can lead to civil unrest or even radical changes in the form of government in a nation (e.g. the rise of Adolph Hitler), especially if the government mismanages the reset process or attempts to bail people out through "direct" monetary inflation.
By the way, before you believe that the government will simply "print money", should that be attempted (or some resemblance of it - e.g. government issues Ts, The Fed buys them and injects the money) the response in the market will be an instantaneous shutdown of private (and outside-US) buyers of debt, as the demand for yields will go parabolic to a degree that the government will be effectively priced out. Since the government needs debt market access to be able to continue to operate, this idea is a non-starter and the government knows it.
The sad reality is that each attempt to prevent a "reset" through meddling in the markets simply makes the ultimate event worse, as the amount of credit that must default to restore equilibrium ratchets higher with each new intervention.
We avoided the "Reset" in 2001/2003, but in doing so we insured that an even bigger one would occur.
Are we now in the beginning of the next "big" reset after the 1930s?
It is not possible to know until we are in the depths of it whether the snowball will gain enough momentum so that it smashes attempts at intervention. Once you can identify with certainty that a "reset" is underway it is too late to position yourself for it.
The risks of this event are now higher than they have been at any time in the previous 50 years.
To believe that we will avoid this event, you have to figure out where the next set of assets will come from that can be pledged for another cycle of credit relfation.
Without that new, unencumbered set of assets, the process of the monetary reset is assured.
Oh, in the news of the day Paulson outlined his "plan" to try to avert foreclosures. Two things:
It won't work. Basically everyone who is in trouble is in trouble because they were sold loans that the originators knew they couldn't afford. There is no fix for this; they are due to get a personal "reset." This scheme of giving money to anyone who has a pulse is how the credit expansion was played for "one more round" after 2000; that can't be fixed.
Trying to finance this with tax-free munis is a non-starter. Among other things, the coupon required to float those will be obscene, which will kill it right there (you can't loan for less than you pay.)
Oh by the way, Paulson knows about the Credit/Money Cycle. He's NOT stupid.
You won't hear him talk about it, because if was to do so he would be quickly backed into a corner where he'd be forced to either dissemble or admit that indeed, we are very likely facing that very "reset" that he claims he has a way to avoid.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests