OWS: FDIC To Cover Losses On $75 Trillion Bank of America Derivative Bets

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Even if it's technically $75T, that's not really anywhere close to how it would actually be. (the GDP of the entire world isn't $75T)

Correct. The 75tr is the NOTIONAL of the derivatives. I've explained this before but will again.


1. Company X wants to issue $100mm in bonds. It has fixed rate assets but wants to finance floating rate.

2. In order to "hedge" the investment, they buy interest rate swaps that swaps the fixed payment collected by the obligors into a floating rate to pay to the bondholders.

3. Every month X receives 3.25% (current floating rate) from the assets, pays the 3.25% to the swap counterparty and the swap counterparty pays back 3.5%. Technically, X is "in the money", they pay less for more. However, what if their floating rate goes up?

4. Bank Y doesn't want to take the full $100mm of rate exposure, they buy rate protection from Bank Z.

5. In any given months, you might have the swap rate deviate by 1-2% (per annum) of $100mm. That is not a huge number.

6. Out of steps 1-4, you have created $200mm in notional swaps (original swap plus the laid off swap). In the end, let's say that per annum you end up paying 1% rate differential, or $1mm.


Sometimes this can go over many times than just 2. Overall, the $75TR number is just a misunderstanding of finance.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Do you think this move was to weaken the hand of short-sellers launching a speculative attack on BoA, rather than actually bailing Bank of America out?

(kind of get the sense that lots of governments around world are positioning for, hopefully, controlled default of Greece, and trying to contain financial contagion to Italy and elsewhere).

Is this like AIG 2008 as a liquidity issue, rather than overt solvency one?

And what do you think of this comment?:

"As for the EFSF, we are a long ways from Wall Street and the rest of the bankers getting their hands on this cash.

Part of the reason for my optimism is that the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal have finally begun focusing on the issue of investors not trusting banks.

This is a major, major shift.

Suddenly, investors who are questioning the solvency of US banks are being heard from - all they need to do is focus on derivatives.

More importantly, these investors are asking for granular level data - not assurance from bank executives or regulators.

This movement has implications for how the EU addresses its problems. Merkel intends to do "everything necessary" to ensure banks are recapitalized and investors believe it.

If she follows through, part of everything necessary will be massive disclosure of granular data by the banks.

Yes, this pushes out the timing of when banks are recapitalized (say 3 -5 years). But what is important is it also stops the Wall Street and the bankers from getting their hands on the EFSF funds.


The beauty of disclosure is that investors will be happy to wait knowing that it is coming."

http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/10/anomie-watch-efsf-and-bailout.html
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Correct. The 75tr is the NOTIONAL of the derivatives. I've explained this before but will again.


1. Company X wants to issue $100mm in bonds. It has fixed rate assets but wants to finance floating rate.

2. In order to "hedge" the investment, they buy interest rate swaps that swaps the fixed payment collected by the obligors into a floating rate to pay to the bondholders.

3. Every month X receives 3.25% (current floating rate) from the assets, pays the 3.25% to the swap counterparty and the swap counterparty pays back 3.5%. Technically, X is "in the money", they pay less for more. However, what if their floating rate goes up?

4. Bank Y doesn't want to take the full $100mm of rate exposure, they buy rate protection from Bank Z.

5. In any given months, you might have the swap rate deviate by 1-2% (per annum) of $100mm. That is not a huge number.

6. Out of steps 1-4, you have created $200mm in notional swaps (original swap plus the laid off swap). In the end, let's say that per annum you end up paying 1% rate differential, or $1mm.


Sometimes this can go over many times than just 2. Overall, the $75TR number is just a misunderstanding of finance.

Thanks for the explanation, that makes it a lot more clear to those of us not familiar with these kinds of derivatives.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Other thing I'd like to know if Bank of America was a bad actor in the mortgage mess prior to 2008 meltdown, or was it all the result of their "acquisition" (Hank Paulson arranged shotgun weddings?) of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch...
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Even if it's technically $75T, that's not really anywhere close to how it would actually be. (the GDP of the entire world isn't $75T)

So make it 1% of that, $750B, or even .2% for a nice $150B.

Our usual righties were raving over $500M in Solyndra.

Few people have the vaguest understanding of how derivatives, particularly OTC synthetic derivatives, can magnify risk & reward by orders of magnitude. The complexity of some instruments is such that unanticipated events can call for totally unanticipated amounts of money to change hands, too...

It's all faith based, as well, given that neither party has any ability to accurately judge the other's exposure to risk and hence their ability to pay when called upon to do so. Witness AIG.

OTC synthetic derivatives are merely gambling, with no underlying interest by either party, and really should be banned as an unnecessary destabilizing element in the financial system.

Fat chance of that.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Sometimes this can go over many times than just 2. Overall, the $75TR number is just a misunderstanding of finance.

It's also possible that the bank swaps a floating rate with one party and swaps a fixed rate with another. Then they have $200M in exposure, but the two positions offset each other (other than the spread they'd develop as premium). There is still the risk that one of them fails and then their other position is exposed.

A good example may be how Vegas takes spread bets. They set the spread hoping that 50% of people bet on team A, and 50% of people bet on team B. If this result occurs, at game time they're guaranteed to make money, regardless of result, as they're only paying out $100 on a $110 bet, but they're taking $110 for a lost bet.

With that said, I doubt this is what's happening with BOA, otherwise their counter parties probably wouldn't be demanding the extra insurance.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
FDIC should seize BofA. Pay of insured depositors, tell shareholders and everyone else to go pound sand. That's what they would do with a non TBTF bank.

This times infinity. Nationalize that piece of shit, and rip the execs/shareholders a new asshole. Isn't BOA in deep shit besides these derivates? They still have all those toxic real estate assets on their balance sheets.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
This times infinity. Nationalize that piece of shit, and rip the execs/shareholders a new asshole. Isn't BOA in deep shit besides these derivates? They still have all those toxic real estate assets on their balance sheets.

We'll purchase "that piece of shit" using *your* tax dollars, not mine.

Anything else you're pissed off today about?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XtXhiekQk&feature=channel_video_title

http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/

More crony capitalism covering up on banks' greedy, irresponsible business practices that puts the consequences in the hands of the American tax-payer?

$75T notional != $75T in exposure

Little more than wikipedia knowledge of the subject is prerequisite for any policy discussion regarding this.

I personally can enter $100T notional derivatives with anyone here. If I long $50T on whatever underlying and then short the same underlying with the same counterparty for another $50T, i have zero exposure and $100T on my books.
 
Last edited:

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Quick! We need to save Capitalism!!! Cut all social programs!! Move more jobs overseas to ensure maximization of profits!!!

Wait - what does that last one have to do wit,...

JUST DO IT YOU SOCIALIST TRAITOR!!!!!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
$75T notional != $75T in exposure

Little more than wikipedia knowledge of the subject is prerequisite for any policy discussion regarding this.

I personally can enter $100T notional derivatives with anyone here. If I long $50T on whatever underlying and then short the same underlying with the same counterparty for another $50T, i have zero exposure and $100T on my books.

Of course- but that would be an exercise in futility, and banks don't do that. They play large amounts at very small spreads in a variety of contracts with a plethora of counterparties. Nobody is perfectly hedged. They're all exposed when the values of the underlying assets move against their position, and suffer counterparty risk as well.

It's like chasing small change in front of a steamroller. Witness Dexia in my earlier links, or AIG, or LTCM in 1998.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Other thing I'd like to know if Bank of America was a bad actor in the mortgage mess prior to 2008 meltdown, or was it all the result of their "acquisition" (Hank Paulson arranged shotgun weddings?) of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch...
Bank of America was perfectly fine before the shotgun wedding.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/breakingthebank

They shutdown their subprime lending business in 2001. They were the first big bank to do that.
What a shame that it came to this point. They were the best run bank in the business.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
They are moving debt from Merryl Lynch to the banking unit. This is probably an accounting trick. However, it should be illegal. If you are investing in BAC then it should be illegal. This affects the bank's ledger. This is the same as an illegal bank loan that you and I are on the hook for.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This is what happens when you mix together normal banks and investment banks. The lines become dulled. I think the FEDS should seize BAC and split up and sell off all their individual banking units.

If they have a lot of holdings in EU then the way it stands the whole bank will be failing anyway. So it is time to be proactive and start splitting up all these mega banks. Just imagine what will happen if the feds have to come us with all those trillions all at once? The entire banking system will collapse!

$75T seems like a lot of money, but just imagine all the other banks and investment firms in the USA and I wonder how much more $T's we have invested in such worthless investments? It is easy to think that FDIC is backing these so-called banks, however, that means you and I have to pay to fix this mess!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Sounds like everyone is on board with seizing\nationalizing BoA. Hell, their name is justification enough.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I think your anger should really be directed at the utterly corrupt and incompetent Bush administration and, as Jim Cramer used to crow about, 8 years of "government of, for, and by the corporation".

Hank Paulson's original conception of TARP was I think basically driving dump trucks full of cash up to Wall Street and giving it to the bankers no strings attached:

"Having listened to all 42 minutes of the late night Treasury briefing of investment banks on Sunday, there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation represents the sort of federal largesse for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase that the Iraq war provided for Halliburton and Blackwater.

The most cynical moment in the call is when the Treasury official confirms, ”our preference would be to help the healthy banks become even healthier” rather than helping troubled banks or illiquid banks.

America is now a centrally planned economy where the Treasury will determine which firms survive and prosper through allocation of scarce capital to an undercapitalised financial sector.

Clearly what is going on here has nothing to do with kick starting the credit markets or stabilising the equity markets or restoring depositor confidence in banks. (Treasury official: “No provision in the legislation that mandates re-lending.”) What is going on here is a blatant attempt to provide government funds to a select cadre of firms (not all banks) which are chosen to be the survivors feasting off the carcasses of their less fortunate and less well-connected brethren as the downturn intensifies in the years to come.

The crash in equities will still happen. The debt deflation of the economy leading to mass commercial and consumer credit defaults will still happen. The collapse of many national, regional and local financial institutions will still happen. The bankruptcy of many municipalities and shortfalls in state budgets will still happen.

This bill is about engineering survivor bias to friends of the Bush administration so that they profit disproportionately from the collapse of these markets using the funds provided by the taxpayer via the unreviewable and unconditional authority of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The basic plan is to set up a federal money laundering operation. Bad assets come in, get laundered by the Treasury and put in a new AAA “wrapper” (as it’s termed on the call), and good assets go out, issued as Treasury guaranteed securities. Whether the final value of the legislation this week is $700 billion or $150 billion is irrelevant as long as the laundering operation can accommodate the throughput, as that number is only a cap on total extensions at any one time.

The SEC will support the plan and survivor bias by relaxing FASB 157 on mark to market accounting. If there is no agreement on what an asset is worth, it is worth whatever the firm holding it says in its Level 3 accounts or the Treasury Secretary accepts in buying it.

The Federal Reserve will support the plan by relaxing the definition of “control stake” in US banks and bank holding companies to allow secretive cabals to hold through private equity and offshore hedge funds. No one knows the beneficial owners of these ill-transparent private equity investors, and so it is the ideal way to reward loyal and helpful insiders, legislators and officials – as well as cede further ownership of American assets to foreign stakeholders who would be politically unacceptable if publicly acknowledged. Many foreign creditors are irate at the losses their funds, banks and pensioners have sustained from investments in the United States, and this plan provides a secret way to buy them off and keep them lending and investing as their own economies are roiled by the deflation to come.

For the past year the survivor bias has been orchestrated from the Federal Reserve, with its extension of innovative credit facilities and selectively engineered rescues or forced mergers. That has been very useful, but that well is now dry. The Fed has no more good assets to trade for the bad assets the banks can offer. And the supply of bad assets just keeps growing as market illiquidity spreads further from the core of the mortgage backed securities market. Instability is now leading to a realistic threat that the Fed and Treasury could lose control of the deflationary process.

Part of the reason the Paulson Plan is so attractive is that it recapitalises the Fed by promoting the unwinding of repos and lending facilities which left the Fed holding toxic assets. As the repos and credit facilities gradually unwind, these toxic assets can now be taken back by the banks and exchanged for good cash. The Fed gets its balance sheet Treasuries and cash back to restore its flexibility to intervene anew.

Favoured private equity and insiders who swap US dollars for equity in the banking system will presumably be aware of the survivor bias being engineered on their behalf. Sovereign wealth funds, investment funds and private equity investors ripped off in the first round of recapitalisation may be willing to come back in once it is clear to them that the next round will benefit from official favouritism. Warren Buffett’s timely stake in Goldman Sachs is clearly linked to his confidence the Paulson Plan will benefit them disproportionately.

A factor which is probably critical but has received little discussion is that literally thousands of Bush administration apparatchiks will need jobs come January, and a fair selection of GOP House and Senate legislators and their aides too. What better way to enahance their CVs in their final months in power than to distribute $700 billion or so in pre-Christmas largesse to the most remunerative employers in the world? And what better way to ensure the corporate largesse is returned to the GOP to win back the White House and Congress in 2012 as the recession fuels public anger?

And then there is a huge arbitrage opportunity as well so that everyone makes money for years to come. According to the conference call, the pricing on offer from the Treasury will be a bit below Level 3 pricing. The toxic assets will be repackaged and resold with a new AAA wrapper, possibly priced well below what the Treasury paid, assuring a huge profit on both immediate liquidation by the banks and ultimate maturity by investors. The Fed gets its cash and Treasuries back; the banks make huge profits; the foreigners and off-shore tax avoiders get disguised ownership of the American financial system; the taxpayer gets ripped off. What’s not to love?

Think back to Fisher’s Theory of Debt Deflation in Great Depressions. Dollars become “bigger” as deflation takes hold because each dollar can buy more assets as assets deflate. That means that as these clowns crash the markets, their $700 billion of liquid cash funnelled to their friends and recycled through the Treasury laundrymat can progressively buy up the rest of the pieces on the gameboard at low discount prices. Game over with those who caused the crash and robbed the bank winning.

Deflation is going to happen – globally. Either we can use the course of deflation to shape healthy economies that will provide growth and employment and productive returns on investment in future, or we can allow deflation to further enrich those miscreants whose irresponsible policies led to the violent financial collapse we are about to experience.

There is a fundamentally healthy economy in America – somewhere underneath all the financial excess and chicanery and all the financial/oil/military/healthcare/developer corruption of local, state and federal politics. It will be a painful and slow process to kill off the metastasising cancerous growths on the economy, but if Americans achieved that, they could embrace a healthier and more productive and more prosperous future."


http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2008/10/financial-eugenics-paulson-plan-for.html
And part of the reason things were spiraling so out of control then was the perception that no one was in charge (George W. Bush wasn't qualified to be president, even after being president for 8 years). President elect Obama had to step in and make tv speeches to comfort the markets that there would soon be a responsible in charge...
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,809
944
126
Seems we can avoid the problem if everyone got their money out of FDIC insured accounts in BoA. Then there would be no one to collect the insurance and the bank can fail without any consequence to public money.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
We could also avoid this problem by fixing it at its roots: stopping crony capitalism. End corporate sponsorships of politicians.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XtXhiekQk&feature=channel_video_title

http://problembanklist.com/fdic-to-cover-losses-on-trillion-bank-of-america-derivative-bets-0419/

More crony capitalism covering up on banks' greedy, irresponsible business practices that puts the consequences in the hands of the American tax-payer?

EDIT: This is just asking for riots. OWS has become a worldwide movement, and BofA is now getting yet another bailout! Tax-payers are once again being required to foot the bill for the corrupt criminals in Wall St.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqNWJe4yUCI


I wonder why the Teapublicans aren't raising hell about this?? :eek::eek:
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
This is what happens when you mix together normal banks and investment banks. The lines become dulled. I think the FEDS should seize BAC and split up and sell off all their individual banking units.

If they have a lot of holdings in EU then the way it stands the whole bank will be failing anyway. So it is time to be proactive and start splitting up all these mega banks. Just imagine what will happen if the feds have to come us with all those trillions all at once? The entire banking system will collapse!

$75T seems like a lot of money, but just imagine all the other banks and investment firms in the USA and I wonder how much more $T's we have invested in such worthless investments? It is easy to think that FDIC is backing these so-called banks, however, that means you and I have to pay to fix this mess!!!!!

You know who we can blame for this don't you....The idiots who were pushing for the Repeal of Glass-Steigall and I will give you one guess which party it was who introduced the Bill ;)
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"In October 2008 the global financial markets crashed. The story in the media is that it was a panic caused by the insolvency of Lehman Brothers.

This is not the truth - or at least not all of it. The crash actually followed a $2 trillion margin call by these four global

banks
on their prime brokerage clients and OTC counterparties
- effectively a 30 per cent increase in required margin. It was the margin call that

forced liquidation of global portfolios of all asset classes - and particularly the high quality, most liquid asset classes."


http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/05/concentration-manipulation-and-margin.html

One reader comment at the end of that thread is guessing that the four were: "My guess of the X4 are: JPM, GS, DB and UBS" (I have no idea if this is true; just read that comment and found it interesting enough to copy and paste).

I point this out because outrage at BoA is probably misdirected, as is criticism of Obama and Bernanke, who are just trying to do their best with the horrible hand of cards they were given...
 
Last edited: