OT: Gambling on steriods and the panic on Wall Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • fearless
    Restricted User
    • 08-14-06
    • 4950

    #1
    OT: Gambling on steriods and the panic on Wall Street
    The situation in the derivatives market is worse than gambling, it's gambling on steroids. Quoting from the second article below:

    Second example: today any wealthy individual can take $1 million and go to a prime broker and leverage this amount three times; then the resulting $4 million ($1 equity and $3 debt) can be invested in a fund of funds that will in turn leverage these $4 millions three or four times and invest them in a hedge fund; then the hedge fund will take these funds and leverage them three or four times and buy some very junior tranche of a CDO that is itself levered nine or ten times. At the end of this credit chain, the initial $1 million of equity becomes a $100 million investment out of which $99 million is debt (leverage) and only $1 million is equity. So we got an overall leverage ratio of 100 to 1. Then, even a small 1% fall in the price of the final investment (CDO) wipes out the initial capital and creates a chain of margin calls that unravel this debt house of cards. This unraveling of a Minskian Ponzi credit scheme is exactly what is happening right now in financial markets.

    So combine an opaque and unregulated global financial system where moderate levels of leverage by individual investors pile up into leverage ratios of 100 plus; and add to this toxic mix investments in the most uncertain, obscure, misrated, mispriced, complex, esoteric credit derivatives (CDOs of CDOs of CDOs and the entire other alphabet of credit instruments) that no investor can properly price; then you have created a financial monster that eventually leads to uncertainty, panic, market seizure, liquidity crunch, credit crunch, systemic risk and economic hard landing. The last two asset and credit bubbles in the US – the S&L real estate bubble and bust of the late 1980s and the tech stock bubble of the late 1990s – ended up in painful recessions. The latest credit and asset bubble was much bigger: housing, mortgages, credit, private equity and LBOs, credit derivatives, corporate re-leveraging. So, the current bust and de-leveraging of the financial system is likely to lead to another painful economic hard landing.

    Panic on Wall Street

    You've heard about the home-loan bust, but do you know your derivatives from your tranches? Read Salon's easy guide to understanding the current market freakout.



  • ShamsWoof10
    SBR MVP
    • 11-15-06
    • 4827

    #2
    Not bad.... I would say you explained that rather well not to mention that it's accurate as can be...

    Comment
    • fearless
      Restricted User
      • 08-14-06
      • 4950

      #3
      Originally posted by ShamsWoof10
      Not bad.... I would say you explained that rather well not to mention that it's accurate as can be...

      Thanks but I can't take any credit. I only wrote the first two sentences.
      Comment
      • curious
        Restricted User
        • 07-20-07
        • 9093

        #4
        1% margin for the big boys is nothing new

        I don't see anything that is fundamentally different now. The big boys have always been able to get leverage way beyond what the "average" investor can get.

        When I was a daytrader I could easily get 10% margin on stocks instead of 50% margin. Much bigger firms than me could get 1% margin. Please note** I was not a daytrader for very long. LOL

        I don't understand derivatives. I do understand the housing market. This always happens. Bankers get greedy and pump money into the mortgage market, and reduce the loan qualifying requirements, and offer "funny money" loans. Which in turn pushes prices up because it creates more demand and the stupidity of the government bureaucrats who control subdivision development and control building permits, keeps the supply of houses artificially low. Then people start speculating, buying houses and never living in them, but flipping them before their closing date. And the bankers make all this possible with their "no money down", "negative amoritization", "interest only" funny money loans. Which makes the housing market even hotter and the bankers get even greedier. Then one day there is no bigger sucker to sell to and the market comes back down to reality. This has happened before.

        And the bankers will over react and tighten credit for everyone, no matter how good your credit is or how sound the deal is. People like me who bought a reasonably priced house in a very calm market and paid 10% down and got a fixed price mortgage and have solid cash reserves and strong income and excellent credit will be penalized in a year or two when the fed has lowered interest rates for the 9th time in response to Congress' panic cries to "DO SOMETHING", and mortgage rates are 5% and we want to refinance. We will pay the penalty for all this stupidity because their won't be any mortgage money available.

        Personally, I don't feel sorry for people who bought houses they could not afford using "funny money" loans, with the intention that they would become speculators and sell the house before the loan turned into a fully amoritized loan at a much higher rate at 120% of the original purchase price. These people were greedy and took a huge gamble, and they lost. If you can't stand the losses, don't take the gamble.

        I also don't feel sorry for the bankers who made these risky loans so easily available. Again, they got greedy.

        I do feel sorry for hard working people who are un-sophisticated and did not understand how dangerous a negative amoritization, adjustable rate mortgage is. I would guess that the brokers who pushed these loans did not explain them fully.

        If I was a mortgage broker I would not even make such a loan available to someone I thought was not sophisticated enough to fully grasp the risks involved. But, I have ethics.

        The government, of course, could have avoided all of this, they regulate the mortgage industry, why are negative amoritization loans even legal? Perhaps for some small % of professional investors they are okay, but for average people? They are not appropriate.

        So, Congress yet again allows foolhardy behavior and then cries foul when the chickens come home to roost. And the taxpayers pay the price.
        Comment
        • ShamsWoof10
          SBR MVP
          • 11-15-06
          • 4827

          #5
          Originally posted by curious
          I don't see anything that is fundamentally different now. The big boys have always been able to get leverage way beyond what the "average" investor can get.
          I don't know that he is saying it's new... maybe he is saying it is more extreme then before... I would agree it is much more extreme.. Credit until recently has been overall more extreme...


          Originally posted by curious
          I don't understand derivatives. I do understand the housing market. This always happens. Bankers get greedy and pump money into the mortgage market, and reduce the loan qualifying requirements, and offer "funny money" loans. Which in turn pushes prices up because it creates more demand and the stupidity of the government bureaucrats who control subdivision development and control building permits, keeps the supply of houses artificially low. Then people start speculating, buying houses and never living in them, but flipping them before their closing date. And the bankers make all this possible with their "no money down", "negative amoritization", "interest only" funny money loans. Which makes the housing market even hotter and the bankers get even greedier. Then one day there is no bigger sucker to sell to and the market comes back down to reality. This has happened before.

          And the bankers will over react and tighten credit for everyone, no matter how good your credit is or how sound the deal is. People like me who bought a reasonably priced house in a very calm market and paid 10% down and got a fixed price mortgage and have solid cash reserves and strong income and excellent credit will be penalized in a year or two when the fed has lowered interest rates for the 9th time in response to Congress' panic cries to "DO SOMETHING", and mortgage rates are 5% and we want to refinance. We will pay the penalty for all this stupidity because their won't be any mortgage money available.
          You are right here as well but again this is the biggest run up and therefore likely will be the biggest drop... What will make it bad is the psycological effect it will have on people... For almost 7 years (I was a little early) I have been telling people the housing market is going to be in trouble and most everyone is conditioned to believe it is a gamble that you can't lose... It is a gamble you can lose even if yoiu buy one in cash... If you buy a house and it's value gets cut in half you will not just say "oh well"... Also keep in mind in the past the older age group owned a home.. In today's age with credit the average 21 year old is buying homes which means a lot more people are sucked in this time...

          Originally posted by curious
          Personally, I don't feel sorry for people who bought houses they could not afford using "funny money" loans, with the intention that they would become speculators and sell the house before the loan turned into a fully amoritized loan at a much higher rate at 120% of the original purchase price. These people were greedy and took a huge gamble, and they lost. If you can't stand the losses, don't take the gamble.

          I also don't feel sorry for the bankers who made these risky loans so easily available. Again, they got greedy.

          I do feel sorry for hard working people who are un-sophisticated and did not understand how dangerous a negative amoritization, adjustable rate mortgage is. I would guess that the brokers who pushed these loans did not explain them fully.

          The government, of course, could have avoided all of this, they regulate the mortgage industry, why are negative amoritization loans even legal? Perhaps for some small % of professional investors they are okay, but for average people? They are not appropriate.
          I think everyone thinks the feds and banks just made a mistake.. Oh ooops how could we be so stupid and give these types of loans out... I find that hard to believe that they are that stupid and we are that smart... IMO I think it's more a matter of control then money... It's the same reason they throw credit cards in college kids faces... Well duuuhhhh...but they want them hooked in to debt as early as possible... IMO I think the housing boom was planned by the feds and banks that is why they cut rates 13 times in a row... The Tech. bubble pop shifted over to the housing boom... After everyone got in they closed the back door with the new bancruptcy law... Now that people are in with NO WAY OUT they are going to offer them 40 to 100 year loans to keep them in for life paying on a bad gamble.... 100 year loans do exist by the way... They are new (not new in Germany) but they are here...

          Comment
          • bigloser
            SBR Wise Guy
            • 07-19-06
            • 787

            #6
            Originally posted by curious
            The government, of course, could have avoided all of this, they regulate the mortgage industry, why are negative amoritization loans even legal? Perhaps for some small % of professional investors they are okay, but for average people? They are not appropriate.
            The government should keep the **** out of peoples lives. If people want negative amortization loans they should be allowed to have them. It is nothing to do with you me or government.

            Why do people always propose government interference in areas of their choice, but then squeal when their own freedoms are taken away?

            Gamblers should have learnt this lesson by now. Our freedom to gamble has been taken away because other do gooders think it is wrong. Why is preventing people having the mortgages they want any different.

            Any proposal of government interference is wrong.
            Comment
            • bigloser
              SBR Wise Guy
              • 07-19-06
              • 787

              #7
              Originally posted by curious
              Perhaps for some small % of professional investors they are okay, but for average people? They are not appropriate.

              .
              I am not a professional investor. My total portfolio of stocks , bonds etc consists of around $4000 invested in one company. The only property I own is the one I live in.

              I am just an average person.

              What gives you the right to decide what is appropriate for me?
              Comment
              • Dark Horse
                SBR Posting Legend
                • 12-14-05
                • 13764

                #8
                The article (#2) contains valid observations. Yet it was written before the Fed stepped in yesterday. And so it puts a timely spin on the panic that had Wall Street in its grip for the past weeks. You will recall that before this period everybody was singing the praises of 'Goldilocks'. Market interpretors merely seek to explain the latest developments, and then, at best, add a lukewarm prediction. My overruling impression is that the majority is in a constant state of surprise. Good to be aware of the risks build into the market, but I think the panic is over, at least for now.

                Now where do I leverage my money at 100 to 1?
                Comment
                • ShamsWoof10
                  SBR MVP
                  • 11-15-06
                  • 4827

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Dark Horse
                  Now where do I leverage my money at 100 to 1?
                  FUTURES!!! LOL

                  Comment
                  • curious
                    Restricted User
                    • 07-20-07
                    • 9093

                    #10
                    Originally posted by bigloser
                    The government should keep the **** out of peoples lives. If people want negative amortization loans they should be allowed to have them. It is nothing to do with you me or government.

                    Why do people always propose government interference in areas of their choice, but then squeal when their own freedoms are taken away?

                    Gamblers should have learnt this lesson by now. Our freedom to gamble has been taken away because other do gooders think it is wrong. Why is preventing people having the mortgages they want any different.

                    Any proposal of government interference is wrong.
                    If you were talking about a free market, I would agree. However, we don't live in a free country with a free market. There is so much government regulation and interference in land development, house construction, mortgage lending, the government regulates every aspect of this. BUT, then they don't protect the market from insanity.

                    If we lived in a free country with a free market, real estate bubles couldn't happen because supply would quickly catch up with and exceed demand, keeping prices in check. Government interference keeps the supply artificially low, which means that when demand is high prices shoot up, then funny money loans make the prices shoot up more.

                    you have to take my comment in context.

                    I would certainly be in favor of unregulated and totally free market land development, house construction, and mortgage financing. Not going to happen though short of a revolution.
                    Comment
                    • curious
                      Restricted User
                      • 07-20-07
                      • 9093

                      #11
                      Originally posted by ShamsWoof10
                      FUTURES!!! LOL

                      Options

                      Currency trading

                      Commodities

                      Don't know why you would want to do that. You might even have an up day or two...then the margin calls will start coming in the mail and your wife will pack your trash and put it out next to the curb and get the locks changed.
                      Comment
                      • curious
                        Restricted User
                        • 07-20-07
                        • 9093

                        #12
                        Originally posted by bigloser
                        I am not a professional investor. My total portfolio of stocks , bonds etc consists of around $4000 invested in one company. The only property I own is the one I live in.

                        I am just an average person.

                        What gives you the right to decide what is appropriate for me?
                        Are you sophisticated enough to understand the risks inherent in using a negative amoritization loan to speculate on real estate in the middle of a speculative real estate bubble? Since I haven't met you I can't answer that. But, I would not offer you a product which has that kind of risk inherent in it unless I knew you were that sophisticated. Any provider of complex financial services owes it to their clients not to get them involved in things that are not appropriate for them. Based on a full understanding of the client and the client's situation. Actually, people offering financial products are required by law to take that approach...few do though.
                        Comment
                        • curious
                          Restricted User
                          • 07-20-07
                          • 9093

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Dark Horse
                          The article (#2) contains valid observations. Yet it was written before the Fed stepped in yesterday. And so it puts a timely spin on the panic that had Wall Street in its grip for the past weeks. You will recall that before this period everybody was singing the praises of 'Goldilocks'. Market interpretors merely seek to explain the latest developments, and then, at best, add a lukewarm prediction. My overruling impression is that the majority is in a constant state of surprise. Good to be aware of the risks build into the market, but I think the panic is over, at least for now.

                          Now where do I leverage my money at 100 to 1?
                          Cutting the interest rate isn't going to help. Interest rate cuts only help mitigate inflation. Inflation is not the issue. There is a liquidity problem. A liquidity problem that has been hidden from us for several years now. But, there is no hiding the problem any longer. When the funny money loans first started appearing in volume, wall street did a very prudent thing, they packaged these risky loans in small slices and bundled the risky slices with non-risky investments like T bills, investment grade bonds, etc. This raised the yield of the solid investments while keeping the risk of the funny money loans manageable.

                          Then some of those "bright stars" on Wall Street got a really "good" idea. "What if we strip the high yielding funny money slices off from the T bills and investment grade bonds and bundle them together, the yield will be 2x or 3x (or more) the market. Think about our bonuses!!". So, that is what they did. They created hedge funds which accumulated very large positions in funny money loans and not much else. Hundreds of billions is going to be marked down to pennies on the dollar or zero.

                          Pretty much all financial institutions are affected because they all played in this game.

                          The fed can lower the interest rate to zero and it isn't going to affect the liquidity problem. The fed and the us government can also pump hundreds of billions of "new money" into the market, that isn't going to help either. Who will want to borrow? Who will want to lend?

                          The same thing happened in Japan. Japan is still in a recession twenty years later.
                          Comment
                          • bigloser
                            SBR Wise Guy
                            • 07-19-06
                            • 787

                            #14
                            Originally posted by curious

                            I would certainly be in favor of unregulated and totally free market land development, house construction, and mortgage financing. Not going to happen though short of a revolution.
                            So you are proposing more regulation - to combat the regulation?!
                            Comment
                            • bigloser
                              SBR Wise Guy
                              • 07-19-06
                              • 787

                              #15
                              Originally posted by curious
                              Are you sophisticated enough to understand the risks inherent in using a negative amoritization loan to speculate on real estate in the middle of a speculative real estate bubble? Since I haven't met you I can't answer that.
                              Even if I had met you it is not your place to decide whether I should have it or not
                              Comment
                              • curious
                                Restricted User
                                • 07-20-07
                                • 9093

                                #16
                                Originally posted by bigloser
                                So you are proposing more regulation - to combat the regulation?!
                                Yes, to keep the problems that the original regulation created from becoming worse. The original regulation created a housing shortage - hence high prices. Funny money loans make the situation even worse by artificially inflating demand, again raising prices.

                                The real solution of course is total deregulation, but that isn't going to happen on this planet.

                                If the funny money loans had not existed, the real estate bubble would not have been as extreme and the coming crash would not be as extreme. And millions of families would not have had their financial lives ruined.

                                I have advocated on other forums eliminating margin on stock purchases for similar reasons. The goal is to smooth out volatility, which in the long run is always a good thing.
                                Comment
                                • curious
                                  Restricted User
                                  • 07-20-07
                                  • 9093

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by bigloser
                                  Even if I had met you it is not your place to decide whether I should have it or not
                                  Given your attitude I doubt you would have been one of my clients, so this is a moot point.
                                  Comment
                                  • homedog
                                    SBR Sharp
                                    • 09-08-05
                                    • 260

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by bigloser
                                    The government should keep the **** out of peoples lives. If people want negative amortization loans they should be allowed to have them. It is nothing to do with you me or government.

                                    Why do people always propose government interference in areas of their choice, but then squeal when their own freedoms are taken away?

                                    Gamblers should have learnt this lesson by now. Our freedom to gamble has been taken away because other do gooders think it is wrong. Why is preventing people having the mortgages they want any different.

                                    Any proposal of government interference is wrong.
                                    I agree whole heartedly............IF.... the government (taxpayers) doesn't have to pick up the pieces after the failure.

                                    If people want to step out and do their own thing, don't cry and ask for help when it falls to pieces.
                                    Comment
                                    • HAPPY BOY
                                      SBR Hall of Famer
                                      • 08-10-05
                                      • 7109

                                      #19
                                      I also don't feel sorry for the bankers who made these risky loans so easily available. Again, they got greedy.
                                      Comment
                                      Search
                                      Collapse
                                      SBR Contests
                                      Collapse
                                      Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                      Collapse
                                      Working...