The Real Crime in the Bailout -- Naked CDS Deals

The size of our national economy this year is roughly $15 trillion. The size of the Credit Default Swaps (CDS) market is $64 trillion. The whole world GDP is about $56 trillion. How could the CDS market be larger than the world GDP combined? That doesn't make any sense.

The minute I read that many months ago, I realized that there was something unreal going on in the CDS market. By "unreal" I mean something that is given value even though it is not attached to real assets. And the more I researched, the more I realized that was true.

CDS are basically supposed to be insurance on a group of assets. So, if you have a collection of mortgages, loans and other assets, and you would like to insure their value, you get a CDS. This makes sense since some of these underlying assets turned out to be quite risky.

What doesn't make sense is for the insurance market to be many times larger than the value of all of the underlying assets combined. Well, it turns out there is a reason for that. It's called the "naked" CDS. These deals are not attached to any underlying asset. They are not collateralized. They are not attached to anything of real value. They are simply bets. As in wagers. As in gambling.

For example, one bank will bet another bank that a group of mortgages will go under, and the other one will say they won't. Neither one owns the mortgage; they're just "insuring" it in theory. The reality is they are gambling - pure and simple. Now, the numbers make sense. The CDS market got to be so large because people were making bets in ways that were not attached to the value of the underlying assets at all. So, they were free to bet as much as they liked.

And, of course, the more money they bet, the more money they made. And if they ever lost those bets, they knew didn't have the money to pay it anyway. So, they had all the incentive in the world to keep multiplying their bets.

So far, this is crazy enough, but here comes the really crazy part - the American taxpayer is now paying off these bets. The people who bet that the housing bubble wouldn't burst or that the assets would retain their value, well, they lost - but they don't have the money to pay off all of these theoretical bets since they never put any collateral down on them. So, they're turning to the government and saying they're out of money. And we're paying them. That's insane.

It's one thing to pay off mortgages that went bad. It's another to pay off insurance for a collection of bad debts. But it's another thing all together just to pay off gambling debts that otherwise have nothing to do with the economy. We, as the taxpayers, would have to be utter fools to provide the money for these inane bets. And, of course, that's exactly what we're doing now.

AIG was the epicenter for the naked CDS. If you care about this topic at all and want to understand how everything went down, you must read this excellent article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. As he explains, AIG started this madness and never had the money to back up their bets.

But what really drives me crazy is that I never hear anyone in government talk about this. I've never heard Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke or any congressman or senator talk about what we should do with the naked CDS. They talk about all of the assets and obligations as if they are all the same. But some of the debts are based on underlying assets and some are not. Is that not an enormous distinction?

The only person who used to be in government who has raised this issue recently is Eliot Spitzer. He said what I have been wondering for a long time now - do we even have to pay these things? Since they are simply gambling wins, if the counterparties who won the bets don't get paid, nothing really happens. They didn't really actually have anything on the line, so it's not like they are going to suffer heavy losses. They are only going to suffer theoretical losses on money that never existed.

Why is Tim Geithner still paying off these debts? If he doesn't understand this phenomenon, he should be fired immediately. If he does understand it, and he thinks it is the obligation of the US taxpayer to pay off the gambling binges of the large financial institutions in the country, then I would seriously question his judgment, to say the least.  

The argument they trot out every time is that we must have these financial institutions survive. I don't think that's true, but even if I did believe that, it would be important to shore up the real assets. But under no scenario is it important to pay off debts on imagined assets.

At the very least, can we please have this conversation? I would love for Tim Geithner or anyone else in the administration or Congress to explain why they think these naked CDS must be paid off. Can someone please ask them the question already, before more of our money is funneled over to the "counterparties" who won these bets?

Watch the Best Talk Show on the Web Here

< Kyrgyz opposition rallies demanded immediate stop to reppressions and free elections | Your tax dollars at work! :) >
 Display:

"How could the CDS market be larger than the world GDP combined?"

Well maybe because the world GDP is the rate of world output per year.  Total world wealth is a much, much bigger number.  The $64 trillion number is the total stock of these CDS transactions.  Which, by the way, is probably a made up number.

Everybody reading this already knows this though.  

by publius on 03/27/2009 01:18:31 PM EST

$64 trillion is a figure comparable with the entire wealth of the US and its citizens, not for a year, but the accumulated total.

by Milez on 03/27/2009 10:15:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Jame Hamsher wrote about this yesterday.  Geithner was asked about naked CDS by Joe Donnelly (D-IN) during the hearing.

Geithner said it would be too hard to figure out of a CDS was a legitimate hedge or not so he opposes outright banning them.   It seems simple enough to me to tell whether the bank owns the underlying asset or not so there must be more to this. 

by publius on 03/27/2009 01:32:08 PM EST

You can use the naked CDS to hedge against more than just the underlying mortgage.  Say you own a bunch of shopping malls in Palm Beach, you want to make sure that even if the real-estate market their tanks you have protections.  So you hedge by buying a CDS against a securitized home basket in Palm Beach.  That way if the Palm Beach economy starts to tank you will have protection.  It is basically a hedge against the economy going to shit in a particular area.

 

Regulate to make sure people have the $$ to pay off the bets, but don't regulate the best out of existence, that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

by 5kfun on 03/27/2009 06:01:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

So this must be why Cassano thought it was highly unlikely to see a scenario why AIG would lose money on these bets.  The only world where they would have to pay off all of these bets is if the entire real estate market in the United States crashed at the same time.  That turns out to be the world we live in, but just a couple of years ago it would have been considered an impossibly unlikely scenario to most people.

Does that sound about right?  

by publius on 03/27/2009 10:32:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If I could foresee the inevitable collapse of asset values, I'm damn sure these vast institutions and their regulators should have been able to. The ratio of personal wealth to income had risen stratospherically above its long term average. There is NO WAY that could be sustained indefinitely, especially as a substantial proportion of those increased asset values was being liquidated and used for current consumption which would inevitably fuel inflation, causing interest rates to rise thus causing the bubble to burst.
If you remember the asset price collapse was immediately preceded by an inflationary surge, with oil prices way over $100 a barrel and other commodity prices also heading into orbit. That was the clear signal that the bubble was about to burst.

by Milez on 03/27/2009 10:58:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

That's a reasonable point, but it doesn't change the fact that the bets exceeded any possible requirement to provide the genuine insurance that you have described.
If someone had suggested a few years ago that a couple of guys on Wall Street were going to speculate vast amounts of money that NEITHER of them could possibly cover and that the taxpayer would pay out to the winner there would have been outrage. Well that's what they did and the US taxpayer is now paying out to the winners on an unimaginable scale.
The tax system is in effect being used not to redistribute wealth, but to concentrate it.

As Cenk and other leading economists have repeated ad nauseum the bankrupt institutions should be bankrupted the same way as you or I would be. That WILL NOT destroy wealth or the banking system. It will make clear what the real value of these institutions is and MORE IMPORTANTLY it will reward the conservative institutions who avoided the risks and are now being punished for exercising caution.

by Milez on 03/27/2009 10:44:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't forget, this also what brought down enron, the oil markets, Behr, Merril Lynch and Lehman. Once Goldman and the hedge fund managers got these guys on the ropes, the naked short selling finished them off.

The mark to market rule changes also played a role in triggering these bank runs and CDS pay offs. Then look at the bankruptcy reform bill and how that helped trigger defaults as well.

There is certainly more evidence here that this was a controlled demolition that spiraled out of control than Bldg 7.


by sisco66 on 03/28/2009 08:57:41 AM EST

 Display: