KnowNOW!

Global Economic Watch

Syndication

Recent Posts

Tags

View more

Other Useful Blogs

Archives

  • Derivative Holding Even More Centralized than in 2008

    If you subscribe to the idea that banks holding a lot of derivatives increases exposure to risk (see WaMu, Bear Stearns), and you hoped that after the events of 2008 that such exposure might be less centralized, then you will surely be disappointed, or concerned, with this chart from Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge : Durden writes: The latest quarterly report from the Office Of the Currency Comptroller is out and as usual it presents in a crisp, clear and very much glaring format the fact that the top 4 banks in the US now account for a massively disproportionate amount of the derivative risk in the financial system. Specifically, of the $250 trillion in gross notional amount of derivative contracts outstanding (consisting of Interest Rate, FX, Equity Contracts, Commodity and CDS) among the Top 25 commercial banks (a number that swells to $333 trillion when looking at the Top 25 Bank Holding Companies), a mere 5 banks (and really 4) account for 95.9% of all derivative exposure (HSBC replaced Wells as the Top 5th bank, which at $3.9 trillion in derivative exposure is a distant place from #4 Goldman with $47.7 trillion). The top 4 banks: JPM with $78.1 trillion in exposure, Citi with $56 trillion, Bank of America with $53 trillion and Goldman with $48 trillion, account for 94.4% of total exposure. As historically has been the case, the bulk of consolidated exposure is in Interest Rate swaps ($204.6 trillion), followed by FX ($26.5TR), CDS ($15.2 trillion), and Equity and Commodity with $1.6 and $1.4 trillion, respectively. And that's your definition of Too Big To Fail right there: the biggest banks are not only getting bigger, but their risk exposure is now at a new all time high and up $5.3 trillion from Q1 as they have to risk ever more in the derivatives market to generate that incremental penny of return. Durden goes on to say that he does not accept the notion that bilateral netting limits exposure. Read Five Banks Account For 96% Of The $250 Trillion In Outstanding US Derivative Exposure; Is Morgan Stanley Sitting On An FX Derivative Time Bomb? here . Hat tip to Washington Blog at The Big Picture .

  • COP June Report: The AIG Rescue

    The Congressional Oversight Panel 's June Report is now out, and in it the members of the panel are critical of the federal government's rescue of AIG in September, 2008. First, the panel argues that the Hank Paulson led Treasury Department did not do its due diligence in examining all the options it had before it committed $85 billion of taxpayer funds to keep the insurance giant from collapsing. But their bigger criticism comes with the actual rescue plan, which COP members say shifted the burden of AIG's failings from its creditors to all taxpayers and "distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky derivative bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations." From the report: In the ordinary course of business, the costs of AIG‟s inability to meet its derivative obligations would have been borne entirely by AIG‟s shareholders and creditors under the well-established rules of bankruptcy. But rather than sharing the pain among AIG‟s creditors – an outcome that would have maintained the market discipline associated with credit risks – the government instead shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers out of a belief that demanding sacrifice from creditors would have destabilized the markets. The result was that the government backed up the entire derivatives market, as if these trades deserved the same taxpayer backstop as savings deposits and checking accounts. One consequence of this approach was that every counterparty received exactly the same deal: a complete rescue at taxpayer expense. Among the beneficiaries of this rescue were parties whom taxpayers might have been willing to support, such as pension funds for retired workers and individual insurance policy holders. But the across-the-board rescue also benefitted far less sympathetic players, such as sophisticated investors who had profited handsomely from playing a risky game and who had no reason to expect that they would be paid in full in the event of AIG‟s failure. Other beneficiaries included foreign banks that were dependent on contracts with AIG to maintain required regulatory capital reserves. Some of those same banks were also counterparties to other AIG CDSs. Here is COP chair Elizabeth Warren discussing the key findings of the June report: Read the full report here .

  • Derivatives on the Whiteboard

    If you are still having trouble explaining what in the world credit default swaps are and their role in the near meltdown of the global economy, Paddy Hirsch and the Marketplace Whiteboard are here to help: Derivatives from Marketplace on Vimeo .

  • Planet Money on Meet the Press

    Planet Money 's Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson were guests on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, where they talked about their aim of increasing financial literacy during the global economic crisis. They also talked to David Gregory about the banking system. Davidson told Gregory that the banks are "insolvent." And then the pair goes on to explain what that means for the government's efforts to rescue the banking system: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Davidson, Blumberg go on to discuss their work at Planet Money and This American Life with Gregory in a special web-only interview. Gregory asks them to give the narrative for terms that have become familiar, even if most people have no idea what they mean: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy