Warren Buffett Warns $516 Trillion Derivative Bubble Disaster Waiting To Happen

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
As this article discusses, it only takes the 'bad 2%' to bring the whole sector down, triggering a domino effect that we've already seen when the housing and subprime markets imploded. Even if you're a role model for financial stability, that 'bad 2%' can affect your bottom line drastically. When the richest man in the world speaks, is anyone listening?

Text

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "Charlie and I believe Berkshire should be a fortress of financial strength" wrote Warren Buffett. That was five years before the subprime-credit meltdown.

"We try to be alert to any sort of mega-catastrophe risk, and that posture may make us unduly appreciative about the burgeoning quantities of long-term derivatives contracts and the massive amount of uncollateralized receivables that are growing alongside. In our view, however, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal."

That warning was in Buffett's 2002 letter to Berkshire shareholders. He saw a future that many others chose to ignore. The Iraq war build-up was at a fever-pitch. The imagery of WMDs and a mushroom cloud fresh in his mind.

Also fresh on Buffett's mind: His acquisition of General Re four years earlier, about the time the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund almost killed the global monetary system. How? This is crucial: LTCM nearly killed the system with a relatively small $5 billion trading loss. Peanuts compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars of subprime-credit write-offs now making Wall Street's big shots look like amateurs.

Buffett tried to sell off Gen Re's derivatives group. No buyers. Unwinding it was costly, but led to his warning that derivatives are a "financial weapon of mass destruction." That was 2002.

Derivatives bubble explodes five times bigger in five years

Wall Street didn't listen to Buffett. Derivatives grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion to $516 trillion by 2007. The new derivatives bubble was fueled by five key economic and political trends:

1. Sarbanes-Oxley increased corporate disclosures and government oversight
2. Federal Reserve's cheap money policies created the subprime-housing boom
3. War budgets burdened the U.S. Treasury and future entitlements programs
4. Trade deficits with China and others destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar
5. Oil and commodity rich nations demanding equity payments rather than debt

In short, despite Buffett's clear warnings, a massive new derivatives bubble is driving the domestic and global economies, a bubble that continues growing today parallel with the subprime-credit meltdown triggering a bear-recession.


Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy.

To grasp how significant this five-fold bubble increase is, let's put that $516 trillion in the context of some other domestic and international monetary data:

* U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion
* U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion
* Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion
* U.S. government's maximum legal debt is $9 trillion
* U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion
* World's GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion
* Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion
* Total value of the world's real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion
* Total value of world's stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion
* BIS valuation of world's derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion
* BIS 2007 valuation of the world's derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion

Moreover, the folks at BIS tell me their estimate of $516 trillion only includes "transactions in which a major private dealer (bank) is involved on at least one side of the transaction," but doesn't include private deals between two "non-reporting entities." They did, however, add that their reporting central banks estimate that the coverage of the survey is around 95% on average.

Also, keep in mind that while the $516 trillion "notional" value (maximum in case of a meltdown) of the deals is a good measure of the market's size, the 2007 BIS study notes that the $11 trillion "gross market values provides a more accurate measure of the scale of financial risk transfer taking place in derivatives markets."

Bubbles, domino effects and the 'bad 2%'

However, while that may be true as far as the parties to an individual deal, there are broader risks to the world's economies. Remember back in 1998 when LTCM's little $5 billion loss nearly brought down the world's banking system. That "domino effect" is now repeating many times over, straining the world's monetary, economic and political system as the subprime housing mess metastasizes, taking the U.S. stock market and the world economy down with it.

This cascading "domino effect" was brilliantly described in "The $300 Trillion Time Bomb: If Buffett can't figure out derivatives, can anybody?" published early last year in Portfolio magazine, a couple months before the subprime meltdown. Columnist Jesse Eisinger's $300 trillion figure came from an earlier study of the derivatives market as it was growing from $100 trillion to $516 trillion over five years. Eisinger concluded:

"There's nothing intrinsically scary about derivatives, except when the bad 2% blow up." Unfortunately, that "bad 2%" did blow up a few months afterwards, even as Bernanke and Paulson were assuring America that the subprime mess was "contained."

Bottom line: Little things leverage a heck of a big wallop. It only takes a little spark from a "bad 2% deal" to ignite this $516 trillion weapon of mass destruction. Think of this entire unregulated derivatives market like an unsecured, unpredictable nuclear bomb in a Pakistan stockpile. It's only a matter of time.

World's newest and biggest 'black market'

The fact is, derivatives have become the world's biggest "black market," exceeding the illicit traffic in stuff like arms, drugs, alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, stolen art and pirated movies. Why? Because like all black markets, derivatives are a perfect way of getting rich while avoiding taxes and government regulations. And in today's slowdown, plus a volatile global market, Wall Street knows derivatives remain a lucrative business.

Recently Pimco's bond fund king Bill Gross said "What we are witnessing is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August." In short, not only Warren Buffett, but Bond King Bill Gross, our Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America's leaders can't "figure out" the world's $516 trillion derivatives.

Why? Gross says we are creating a new "shadow banking system." Derivatives are now not just risk management tools. As Gross and others see it, the real problem is that derivatives are now a new way of creating money outside the normal central bank liquidity rules. How? Because they're private contracts between two companies or institutions.

BIS is primarily a records-keeper, a toothless tiger that merely collects data giving a legitimacy and false sense of security to this chaotic "shadow banking system" that has become the world's biggest "black market."

That's crucial, folks. Why? Because central banks require reserves like stock brokers require margins, something backing up the transaction. Derivatives don't. They're not "real money." They're paper promises closer to "Monopoly" money than real U.S. dollars.

And it takes place outside normal business channels, out there in the "free market." That's the wonderful world of derivatives, and it's creating a massive bubble that could soon implode.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
$516 trillion? That is half of a number I don't even know what the number is. That is silly talk!
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
$516 trillion? That is half of a number I don't even know what the number is. That is silly talk!

Exactly what George Bush said. Exactly.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
All bubbles must implode.

That is a basic law of economics, correct?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: GrGr
All bubbles must implode.

That is a basic law of economics, correct?
This bubble is a little bigger than most bubbles ;)
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Well, derivative is not all bad, just like the stock market, just like the real estate market. There are many uses for derivatives, for example, risk management. The problem is the people, people get greedy and speculate everytime some asset/instruments becomes hot. So people speculate stock back in late 1990's, real estate in the 2000's and now derivatives. That's when too much money gets into those asset/financial instruments and creates bubble. What needs to be criticized/regulated is not the instrument itself, but how people uses those instruments for purpose outside of its intended purpose.
 

Turkish

Lifer
May 26, 2003
15,547
1
81
I made a lot of money with call options back in the day when Google went public but other than that one specific stock, I lost money %95 of the time. I think derivatives should be a lot more restricted.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I switched banks about a year ago after finding out how heavily they were into derivatives.

Sounds like that's not going to be enough.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,644
9,948
136
2. Federal Reserve's cheap money policies created the subprime-housing boom

That include today?s $200 billion bail out? It?s a short term fix to a very large problem. If it does not succeed it?ll dig us in a deeper hole. Seems our policy to fight this economic downturn could send us right off the cliff.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
At this point, Buffet is just pouring more gas on the fire sale. Apparently, he hasn't gotten enough bargains yet!
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Ya I saw it coming with this derivative business long before Warren ever did, I moved into the double integral business....I approximated the volume of all the bubbles that mattered to me and now I know when the sht is going to go down!
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I don't understand the jump from "agreements to trade in the future at a given price" to how this is "creating money outside the system".
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,584
81
91
www.bing.com
uhh $516 trillion in dollars is sort of impossible, unless you are calcluating worth of something else and adding it in.

A quick google search tells me that all the money in the world, both printed and unprinted, of every currency added up, would still be less than $50 trillion dollars worth.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
That number is highly inflated and works off of "notional" not real exposure.

For example, if I were to be in a transaction where I had fixed rate assets and a floating rate securitization tranche, I need to hedge the risk of rates going way up and me not having enough cash to pay for the deal, thus I would do a fixed for floating swap.

If my deal were $100MM, then the "notional" would be that amount. My fixed interest rate would be 3.5%, where the floating could be +/- between that amount. Every month the payment is netted, if floating rates are lower than 3.5%, I would have to pay the swap counterparty. If rates are higher, then they would pay me.

For example, if we used 3.5% for the fixed payment and floating rates were at 3.4%, then I would technically pay the fixed rate to the counterparty. (100*3.5%*31/360). They would pay me (100*3.4%*31/360). I would use their 3.4% to pay the bondholders.

Thus, the "netted" amount I would pay the swap counterparty would be 100*.1%*31/360 or $861.11.

Now, suddenly, instead of this massive $100MM number, you suddenly get down to an exposure of $861.

This is how much of the derivatives world works, whereby the "notional" amount is some huge indexed number, but the actual exposure is far less than that.

Take for example oil futures. You can take out $100bn in oil futures, yet your maximum exposure would be a very small amount of this number, whatever the delta is between the contract and spot prices at settlement. Suddenly, the $100bn number is now $200MM.

THat is why it's impossible to encapsulate derivatives into the worldwide wealth, because it has more or less nothing to do with worldwide wealth, nor will it ever be settled by worldwide wealth.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I don't understand the jump from "agreements to trade in the future at a given price" to how this is "creating money outside the system".

It isn't. You can't use futures to trade for butter or guns. Nor do they have actual cash value anywhere near equivalent to their "nominal" value.

if I had to guess, actual real cash value of hedges are closer to 1/1000th or even far less the notional.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,989
32,412
146
Thanks LK, I was waiting for you to break it down for the layman like myself.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
That number is highly inflated and works off of "notional" not real exposure.

For example, if I were to be in a transaction where I had fixed rate assets and a floating rate securitization tranche, I need to hedge the risk of rates going way up and me not having enough cash to pay for the deal, thus I would do a fixed for floating swap.

If my deal were $100MM, then the "notional" would be that amount. My fixed interest rate would be 3.5%, where the floating could be +/- between that amount. Every month the payment is netted, if floating rates are lower than 3.5%, I would have to pay the swap counterparty. If rates are higher, then they would pay me.

For example, if we used 3.5% for the fixed payment and floating rates were at 3.4%, then I would technically pay the fixed rate to the counterparty. (100*3.5%*31/360). They would pay me (100*3.4%*31/360). I would use their 3.4% to pay the bondholders.

Thus, the "netted" amount I would pay the swap counterparty would be 100*.1%*31/360 or $861.11.

Now, suddenly, instead of this massive $100MM number, you suddenly get down to an exposure of $861.

This is how much of the derivatives world works, whereby the "notional" amount is some huge indexed number, but the actual exposure is far less than that.

Take for example oil futures. You can take out $100bn in oil futures, yet your maximum exposure would be a very small amount of this number, whatever the delta is between the contract and spot prices at settlement. Suddenly, the $100bn number is now $200MM.

THat is why it's impossible to encapsulate derivatives into the worldwide wealth, because it has more or less nothing to do with worldwide wealth, nor will it ever be settled by worldwide wealth.

Very interesting.

Does this mean that the Fed cannot do a Volker and raise the interest rates way up, just for example, above 10 % if you needed to do so to combat inflation eg, without one of the parties in the scenario above getting underwater by the floating rate differential?

I am struggling to understand what connection the derivates do have to real world wealth.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
That number is highly inflated and works off of "notional" not real exposure.

For example, if I were to be in a transaction where I had fixed rate assets and a floating rate securitization tranche, I need to hedge the risk of rates going way up and me not having enough cash to pay for the deal, thus I would do a fixed for floating swap.

If my deal were $100MM, then the "notional" would be that amount. My fixed interest rate would be 3.5%, where the floating could be +/- between that amount. Every month the payment is netted, if floating rates are lower than 3.5%, I would have to pay the swap counterparty. If rates are higher, then they would pay me.

For example, if we used 3.5% for the fixed payment and floating rates were at 3.4%, then I would technically pay the fixed rate to the counterparty. (100*3.5%*31/360). They would pay me (100*3.4%*31/360). I would use their 3.4% to pay the bondholders.

Thus, the "netted" amount I would pay the swap counterparty would be 100*.1%*31/360 or $861.11.

Now, suddenly, instead of this massive $100MM number, you suddenly get down to an exposure of $861.

This is how much of the derivatives world works, whereby the "notional" amount is some huge indexed number, but the actual exposure is far less than that.

Take for example oil futures. You can take out $100bn in oil futures, yet your maximum exposure would be a very small amount of this number, whatever the delta is between the contract and spot prices at settlement. Suddenly, the $100bn number is now $200MM.

THat is why it's impossible to encapsulate derivatives into the worldwide wealth, because it has more or less nothing to do with worldwide wealth, nor will it ever be settled by worldwide wealth.

Very interesting.

Does this mean that the Fed cannot do a Volker and raise the interest rates way up, just for example, above 10 % if you needed to do so to combat inflation eg, without one of the parties in the scenario above getting underwater by the floating rate differential?

I am struggling to understand what connection the derivates do have to real world wealth.

Technically, if fundamentals really got out of whack, that could happen. However, even in that position you'd only be paying about .5% per month with a max exposure of $6m.

The real world wealth would be shuffled around, which is about all that would happen, but on a much smaller scale than the $516tr would imply.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Jpeyton, how do you sleep at night? Well?

you're such a downer...
You should really direct your concern to the Oracle of Omaha. He made the prediction, I just read it.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
words. so many words.

The way I follow it, the enormous figures come from adding up every time a security is repackaged. There's no real money; just bonds paid for with other bonds, and after a while, noone can see the beginning of the line any more.

So, there isn't $516 trillion of money anywhere. The same original $Whoknows Billion has been recycled over and over.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
516 trillion would be more than all the assets of every country in the world combined, so clearly there is alot of playing with numbers. I mean just look at this one example to see how you can get BS numbers: say I sell a stock short for 10$, now what is my maximum losses? It is infact infinite because if the stock suddenly went up to 10$ I lost 5$ and if it went up to 50$ I lose 45$ and if it went up to 100,000,000,000,005$ then I lose 100,000,000,000,000$, so while you could say I am at risk to lose billions of dollars on a stock sale it really is not possible that it will ever reach that. Same for comodities, If I made some fixed price contract to buy natural gas at 8$/mbtu there is no way its gonna suddenly go up to 8000$/mbtu, and if it did then whatever companies had those contracts would just go bankrupt.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: Foxery
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
words. so many words.

The way I follow it, the enormous figures come from adding up every time a security is repackaged. There's no real money; just bonds paid for with other bonds, and after a while, noone can see the beginning of the line any more.

So, there isn't $516 trillion of money anywhere. The same original $Whoknows Billion has been recycled over and over.

Aye, but how can people make real money out of recycling fantasy money? If someone earns real money every time a fantasy figure is recycled or leveraged - isn't that creating real money out of nothing and proclaiming it profit? Each time a recycle like this occurs it removes the money further into fantasy land, even if some 'profits' remain in someones 'books' and serves as real collateral for real transactions such as buying companies or stocks or debt instruments?