From award-winning Financial Times journalist Gillian Tett, who enraged Wall Street leaders with her newsbreaking warnings of a crisis more than a year ahead of the curve, Fool's Gold tells the astonishing unknown story at the heart of the 2008 meltdown. Drawing on exclusive access to J.P.... read more
“Banks had typically been forced to hold $800 million in reserves for every $10 billion in corporate loans on their books”
As the name implies, a derivative is, on the most basic level, nothing more than a contract whose value derives from some other asset, such as a bond, a stock, or a quantity of gold. Key to derivatives is that those who buy and sell them are each making a bet on the future value of that asset. Derivatives provide a way for investors either to protect themselves—for example, against a possible negative future price swing—or to make high-stakes bets on price swings for what might be huge payoffs. At the heart of the business is a dance with time.Highlighted by 113 Kindle customers
The shell company would “insure” J.P. Morgan for the risk of the entire bundle of loans, with Morgan paying a stream of fees to the SPV and the SPV agreeing to pay Morgan for any losses from defaults. Meanwhile, the SPV would turn around and sell smaller chunks of that risk to investors, in synthetically sliced-out junior, mezzanine, and senior notes.Highlighted by 94 Kindle customers
For the first time in history, banks would be able to make loans without carrying all, or perhaps even any, of the risk involved themselves. That would, in turn, free up banks to make more loans, as they wouldn’t need to take losses if those loans defaulted. The derivatives buyers who had gambled on that risk would take the hit.Highlighted by 93 Kindle customers
Finance serves a public utility function, and the question government regulators must wrestle with is to what degree private financiers should be allowed to seek a profit and to what degree they must be required to ensure that money flows safely.Highlighted by 92 Kindle customers
The crucial point about derivatives was that they could do two things: help investors reduce risk or create a good deal more risk. Everything depended on how they were used and on the motives and skills of those who traded in them.Highlighted by 89 Kindle customers
Over time, bankers realized that they could use the cash flow from the mortgage payments being made on that bundle of loans to make a tidy extra profit. If they issued securities, such as bonds, they could back those securities with the cash flow from the mortgage payments—for example, making the regular payments to bondholders from that cash—and overall, they’d make money from both the mortgage payments and the sales of the securities. These became known as mortgage-backed securities—hence the term securitization—and the business boomed.Highlighted by 89 Kindle customers
That was the dream: credit derivatives would allow J.P. Morgan—and in due course all other banks, too—to exquisitely fine-tune risk burdens, releasing banks from age-old constraints and freeing up vast amounts of capital, turbo-charging not only banking but the economy as a whole.Highlighted by 84 Kindle customers
In 2000, the amount of nonconforming mortgage bonds that were sold was tiny, running at a mere $80 billion, or less than a tenth of all mortgage bonds. By 2005, sales of nonconforming mortgage bonds hit $800 billion. Remarkably, that meant that almost half of all mortgage-linked bonds in America that year were based on subprime loans.Highlighted by 78 Kindle customers
Demchak’s team in New York, however, preferred to focus on a different idea for turbo-charging the market. That was, essentially, to bundle lots of deals together, pooling all of their risk, and then to create derivatives carved out of that whole pool, rather than swapping loan by loan.Highlighted by 68 Kindle customers
Varikooty’s judgment on the mortgage debt was clear: he could not see a way to track the potential correlation of defaults with any level of confidence. Without that, he declared, no precise estimate of the risks of default in a bundle overall could be made. If defaults on mortgages were uncorrelated, then the BISTRO structure should be safe for mortgage risk, but if they were highly correlated, it might be catastrophically dangerous. Nobody could know.Highlighted by 66 Kindle customers
We’re hiding the errata, movie connections, books that influenced this book, books influenced by this book, books that cite this book and books cited by this book sections. If you would like to add content to them, you must first make them visible.