Derivatives Market

#1

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
24,291
Likes
24,279
#1
Got this in an email today, thought I would share:

Derivative markets... an understandable explanation


Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. She 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 and soon she has the largest sale volume for any bar in Detroit .

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

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

He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on security markets worldwide. Naive investors don't really understand the securities being sold to them as "AAA-rated secured bonds" are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, their prices continuously climb, and the securities become the top-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, although the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the bank (subsequently fired due to his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar.

Heidi demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed, they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Therefore, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBOND and ALKIBOND immediately drop in price by 90%. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80%. The decreased bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having granted her generous payment extensions and having invested in the securities are faced with writing off her debt and losing over 80% on her bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 50 workers.

The bank and brokerage houses are saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock negotiations by leaders from both political parties. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by a tax levied on employed middle-class non-drinkers.
 
#2
#2
So your point is that it was the evil drinkers who enjoyed all the benefits and skipped out on their collective tab who caused this? No criticism of the banker who upped the limit (and got paid a big bonus for generating both the increased debt, showing up as an asset on their books, and also re-packaging the debt and selling at a security to the bond traders)? And no criticism for the bond traders, who sold the derivatives on the open market, and got paid big bonuses to do so, without even checking as to what the underlying collateral was?
 
#3
#3
It's not my point, just what somebody sent me.

And I think it shows blame being spread around equally here. My first thought was this makes the bankers, bond traders, and the bar owner look pretty stupid.
 
#4
#4
It's not my point, just what somebody sent me.

And I think it shows blame being spread around equally here. My first thought was this makes the bankers, bond traders, and the bar owner look pretty stupid.


No, no, no. The last lines of the email are about a tax increase on the employed folks to ultimately pay the tab of the drinkers. Its pretty obvious that the email is squarely blaming the drinkers, and no one else, for the problem.
 
#5
#5
No, no, no. The last lines of the email are about a tax increase on the employed folks to ultimately pay the tab of the drinkers. Its pretty obvious that the email is squarely blaming the drinkers, and no one else, for the problem.

...or pay for the bailout needed because of irresponsible decisions of the bankers. Read the last sentence again.

I really think your reading way too much into this. I read it and see equal blame for everybody, with the employed responsible taxpayer getting screwed.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
ok first off the average subprime borrower was no where near an umeployed alcoholic which kind of ruins the entire premise. the bankers giving the "alcoholics" loans were not selling the homes (i.e. beer) as this example implies (unless i suppose he is refering to the homebuilders). and the derivates market and packaging loans is still a good idea.
 
#9
#9
ok first off the average subprime borrower was no where near an umeployed alcoholic which kind of ruins the entire premise. the bankers giving the "alcoholics" loans were not selling the homes (i.e. beer) as this example implies (unless i suppose he is refering to the homebuilders). and the derivates market and packaging loans is still a good idea.

what i want to know is, why don't they have the government involved.

they should have added that the government would back the bar giving the credit. as they did with Freddy and fannie. the government promised the bar it would back the credit it was giving to the unemployed drinker . this is what really started it.
 
#11
#11
ok first off the average subprime borrower was no where near an umeployed alcoholic which kind of ruins the entire premise. the bankers giving the "alcoholics" loans were not selling the homes (i.e. beer) as this example implies (unless i suppose he is refering to the homebuilders). and the derivates market and packaging loans is still a good idea.

ok first off the average subprime borrower was no where near an umeployed alcoholic which kind of ruins the entire premise.

But the average subprime borrower did apply for a mortgage which they couldn't afford, and the banks handed out those loans that shouldn't have been handed out in the first place. They weren't "unemployed drinkers" per se, but they did buy beyond their means...i.e..."drank too much" and said "oh well" afterward when it was time to pay up.

the bankers giving the "alcoholics" loans were not selling the homes (i.e. beer) as this example implies (unless i suppose he is refering to the homebuilders).

It never implied they were selling "beer", but it did say they were buying and selling debt of what was ultimately "unemployed alcoholics" (ie...people that could never pay back what they bought), trading it over and over again until everybody got their piece of the pie, and then it crashed. Is this not what happened?

and the derivates market and packaging loans is still a good idea.

I honestly don't know much about it, but that is a hard pill to swallow right now.
 
#12
#12
what i want to know is, why don't they have the government involved.

they should have added that the government would back the bar giving the credit. as they did with Freddy and fannie. the government promised the bar it would back the credit it was giving to the unemployed drinker . this is what really started it.

I don't disagree with this. But the problem was made worse by the irresponsible people who bought the houses, and the derivatives traders who passed these things around like party joints, either not understanding or not knowing they were worthless.
 
#13
#13
It never implied they were selling "beer", but it did say they were buying and selling debt of what was ultimately "unemployed alcoholics" (ie...people that could never pay back what they bought), trading it over and over again until everybody got their piece of the pie, and then it crashed. Is this not what happened?

and the derivates market and packaging loans is still a good idea.

I honestly don't know much about it, but that is a hard pill to swallow right now.


how did everyone get their piece of the pie? and let's not disregard the fact that the housing market collapsed. how many of these subprime borrowers woudl still be paying their mortgages if it just remained flat to slightly down? i'd say a lot of them.

derivatives will end up saving the housing market and the us economy.
 
#14
#14
The whole basis of the sub-prime loans was that the houses would hopefully go up in value. People consuming beer have no hope that the beer they consumed would go up in value.
 
#15
#15
I don't disagree with this. But the problem was made worse by the irresponsible people who bought the houses, and the derivatives traders who passed these things around like party joints, either not understanding or not knowing they were worthless.

how are they worthless? is the house not worth anything? the mistake was assuming the housing market couldn't crash and therefore assuming the credit worthiness wasn't as important as before. the mistake was not issuing derivates.
 
#16
#16
I don't disagree with this. But the problem was made worse by the irresponsible people who bought the houses, and the derivatives traders who passed these things around like party joints, either not understanding or not knowing they were worthless.

i agree too, but the root of the problem was the gov forcing these banks to lower their standards.
 
#17
#17
how did everyone get their piece of the pie? and let's not disregard the fact that the housing market collapsed. how many of these subprime borrowers woudl still be paying their mortgages if it just remained flat to slightly down? i'd say a lot of them.

derivatives will end up saving the housing market and the us economy.

I would say most probably got ARM's and exotic financing schemes that they couldn't pay back when the rates started adjusting. Sure it wouldn't have been as bad if the housing market didn't completely collapse, but that is a chicken and egg argument.

If everybody was paying their mortgages that the market would have stayed flat to slightly down. If the market would have stayed flat to slightly down, everybody would be able to pay their mortgages.
 
#18
#18
how are they worthless? is the house not worth anything? the mistake was assuming the housing market couldn't crash and therefore assuming the credit worthiness wasn't as important as before. the mistake was not issuing derivates.

No, the house is not near worth what they thought it was, and the credit worthiness of the buyer was crap by any measurable standard. That was the whole point. Keep handing out the loans to people who don't qualify for them, sell them off, and package these things up and pass them around....all the while put your hands over your eyes and hope the whole thing doesn't crash. Trading a bunch of bad debt on ridiculously overpriced assets is a bad decision anyway you look at it.

I understand hindsight is 20/20. But these people are the talent and get paid good money to understand and forsee this. I knew a guy that graduated from school about 5 years ago, he moved to California and got a job that pays $70K per year....he was approved for a $600K house. You can't sit there and tell me everybody from the mortgage companies, banks, and traders didn't know any of this was going on. The money was flowing, and rational thinking went out the door.
 
#19
#19
I look it at pretty simply. The problem was people buying more house then they could afford, and the housing market falling to the point, where they owed more on their house then it was worth. People got ARM's thinking they could sell their house when the ARM payments went up.....big mistake. People decided to walk away from their house and let it fall into foreclosure, which is why you force people to put down 10-20% to keep them from doing that.

The banks should be on the hook, they chose to make the loans, and it wasnt because they were being forced to by the govt, they wanted the bonuses they were getting paid. The FDIC and the regulators who are suppose to ensure these banks, are the ones who dropped the ball. With Bush campaigning on home ownership for relection, no surprise why. :twocents:
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
I would say most probably got ARM's and exotic financing schemes that they couldn't pay back when the rates started adjusting. Sure it wouldn't have been as bad if the housing market didn't completely collapse, but that is a chicken and egg argument.

If everybody was paying their mortgages that the market would have stayed flat to slightly down. If the market would have stayed flat to slightly down, everybody would be able to pay their mortgages.

well even the default rate on subprimes at this point isn't even 50%. obviously a major problem here was people buyng homes that they can't afford. i'm just not under this delusion that even with rigid standards that the housing market wouldnt' have seen a significant drop and the economy wouldn't have followed. it certainly wouldn't have been as bad, but we'd still be in a major recession.
 
#21
#21
The banks should be on the hook, they chose to make the loans, and it wasnt because they were being forced to by the govt, they wanted the bonuses they were getting paid. The FDIC and the regulators who are suppose to ensure these banks, are the ones who dropped the ball. With Bush campaigning on home ownership for relection, no surprise why. :twocents:

The banks are clearly on the hook. why do you think they are losing billions?

and it was the democratic congress that wanted homes for all, not george bush.
 
#22
#22
The banks are clearly on the hook. why do you think they are losing billions?

and it was the democratic congress that wanted homes for all, not george bush.

If the banks were really on the hook they would have been allowed to fail. I don't know about losing billions...all I know is they got billions in our tax money.
 
#23
#23
The banks are clearly on the hook. why do you think they are losing billions?

and it was the democratic congress that wanted homes for all, not george bush.

When I say on the hook, they should allow the banks to go under, intead of propped up with U.S. tax dollars. People in the banking industry, made huge bonuses for all these loans, now they should be paying the price for that, but they aren't the taxpayers are. They profitted when times were good, and the U.S. taxpayers pays when times are bad. Great for them.

If that's the case, why is a minority Democratic Congressman setting Housing Policy for a Republican controlled Congress and Republican President? I don't buy it, they don't have the power to push that through.
 
#24
#24
If the banks were really on the hook they would have been allowed to fail. I don't know about losing billions...all I know is they got billions in our tax money.

you realize it's a loan not a handout right?
 
#25
#25
you realize it's a loan not a handout right?

Yes, but getting that loan is losing them billions? Really? They are probably turning around and working that money to cover the interest, and if not, coming close. And regardless, it's better than going out of business.

Again, if they were really on the hook they would be out on the street right now.
 

VN Store



Back
Top