The Unspoken Casualty In The Financial Turmoil. The Bond Insurers

Fuck the Bond Insurers, more money changers. This is why the US economy is tanking. Financial tricks developed under Nixon and Reagan add noting tangible but create paper wealth. We need to go back to manufacturing.
 
Fuck the Bond Insurers, more money changers. This is why the US economy is tanking. Financial tricks developed under Nixon and Reagan add noting tangible but create paper wealth. We need to go back to manufacturing.
Really? - the same market, that plays such a huge role in building public infrastructure in cities and public sector housing?

QueEx
 
Really? - the same market, that plays such a huge role in building public infrastructure in cities and public sector housing?

QueEx

I am sick of corporate welfare!

source: The Motley Fool

Talk of Bailing Out Bond Insurers Sparks Wild Ride
By Morgan Housel January 25, 2008

Volatility, anyone?

In just the past three days, bond-insurance giants have been on a seesaw that has spun the heads of even the most iron-stomached investors.

Ambac Financial (NYSE: ABK) has undergone one crazy week of trading, rising 170% throughout the first part of the week, and then falling 26% from the week's high. Instate rival MBIA (NYSE: MBI) saw similar moves, with its shares more than doubling from the week's opening price to Thursday morning's high.

The huge volatility comes after Ambac had its credit rating downgraded last week by rating agency Fitch. Without a pristine reputation, the future of the bond insurer looked dire at best, causing investors to question whether bankruptcy loomed.

I got it, I got it! Oops, I don't got it ...
But much of that fear was sapped away earlier this week as news spread that the New York insurance regulator was in preliminary talks about a bond insurance industry bailout. Fear turned to jubilation on Wednesday, sending Ambac higher by some 72%, and MBIA up more than 33%, on the bailout news. But on Thursday, both Ambac and MBIA went down after many felt the bailout wouldn't amount to much more than other proposed government bailout plans that faltered, like the super SIV plan a couple of months ago.

More to the point, a bailout would likely call on Wall Street banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) to pony up billions of dollars to loan to bond insurers -- whose futures clearly remain precarious. The issue then becomes whether other banks have the resources to provide the capital and take on the extra risk. Nearly every major financial house in the country has fallen into rough waters amid a roiled subprime market, and many of the largest players have needed to raise billions of dollars from outside investors -- what basically amounts to a bailout for themselves.

Bringing down the house
A collapse of these bond insurers would have serious ripple effects on the rest of the bond market. When a bond insurer suffers a credit downgrade, the bonds that it insures should technically be downgraded as well. With an estimated $2.4 trillion in bonds being covered by bond insurers, such a scenario might make the current debt debacle look like a minor hiccup.

Amid rising defaults on mortgage-backed securities stemming from an overheated housing market, fear has taken hold of debt markets around the globe. Perhaps one of the only glimmers of hope for investors has been the assurance of being backed by players like Ambac and MBIA. If insurers lose their ability to cover bonds they insure, fear of anything debt-related might indeed go through the roof, sending the economy into a tailspin.

Doomsday scenario aside, the fall from grace of bond insurers brings back the question of "Whose fault is this, anyway?"

Some point the finger at greedy management who ventured away from the tried and true model of insuring government-issued municipal debt into the more lucrative CDO market.

Risk in disguise?
One of the main pillars in any insurance business is knowing the risk profile of those you insure. Car insurers like Mercury General (NYSE: MCY) know with great certainty the odds that someone of your age, gender, and driving history will get in an accident, and how much that accident will cost -- and they adjust the amount they charge you accordingly. Vast amounts of data and decades of history are used to come up with these calculations, so insurers generally sleep well at night knowing their claims shouldn't be too far off predictions.

When Ambac and MBIA ventured into the world of insuring mortgage-backed securities, however, they were paving new ground. Nobody really knew the exact risk these bonds held because, well, nobody really knew what was in them. As the sheets get pulled off and the true nature of these bonds appears, we're starting to understand the risk they entailed. The bad news for bond insurers? They contained a lot of risk; probably much more than they accounted for.

In light of this, should other banks, maybe even taxpayers, be responsible for bailing out companies who went out on a limb to squeeze out profits? In most cases, no, but the ramifications of a bond insurance fallout puts us in quite a pickle.

Events like this show us just how incredibly intertwined and complex our financial system has become. When one side sneezes, nearly everyone else runs the risk of catching a cold.
 
The Fraud In The Bond Rating Models, Inflation

These two know their shit. They predicted the most recent "surprising" inflation numbers almost months ago. They had a very good upstanding of central banking and inflation. You may hear some politic you don't like. But theres a slider on the audio file, so you'll be OK.

Might also need to be an Econ major to understand. Very dense stuff but informing, and with their record from making predictions, I listen to them with earnest.

part1

http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Muhammad.Rafeeq/TFC.2008.02.26.Tue.Rafeeq.1of2.mp3

part2

http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Muhammad.Rafeeq/TFC.2008.02.26.Tue.Rafeeq.2of2.mp3
 
Really? - the same market, that plays such a huge role in building public infrastructure in cities and public sector housing?

QueEx

Are you happy QueEx? The US government (the tax payers, that's you and me), bailed out AIG. AIG was a major Bond Insurer. It was one of their many risky business and was profitable when hustled well. Now the hypocrites stuck it to the people. Corporate Welfare at its finest. Thanks!

source: Financial Week

AIG’s losses show swaps next domino

By Marine Cole
February 18, 2008

Bank's losses, already exceeding $100 billion since the beginning of the credit crunch, are likely to grow much larger if the problems starting to show up in credit default swaps spread.

That threat was underscored last week when insurer American International Group announced a larger than projected decline in the value of its CDS portfolio and said its losses could grow even larger by the time it releases 2007 results, which are due before the end of the month.

The problem is by no means limited to AIG. Indeed, banks are even more exposed as counterparties to CDS underwritten by bond insurers such as Ambac Financial Group and MBIA. CDS function as insurance contracts on the risk of default by bond issuers.

AIG said last week that paper losses on its CDS portfolio climbed to over $5 billion as of the end of November from a previously estimated $1 billion. Counterparties to CDS contracts written by AIG are mostly banks, which bought them to hedge their exposure to collateralized debt obligations.

“Counterparties tend to be banks that wrote the mortgages and then packaged them,” said Chris Winans, spokesman for AIG, who said that AIG executives weren’t available to comment since the company is in a quiet period before releasing 2007 earnings.

AIG said last week that the change in estimated losses came after its auditor, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, noted a “material weakness” in AIG’s internal control over the financial reporting and fair valuation of the CDS portfolio, which is held by its subsidiary, AIG Financial Products. The AIG subsidiary writes CDS on the super-senior tranches of CDOs on residential mortgage-backed securities.

AIG underwrote a little over $500 billion in super-senior CDS, mostly on securities such as corporate loans, but also including some $78 billion related to CDOs, which have some exposure to subprime and have been losing value.

Despite the losses, analysts estimate that AIG will be able to fulfill its contracts even in the event of widespread defaults.

“We continue to think the firm has ample financial resources to shoulder a reasonable worst-case scenario, which we define as paying out about $10 billion in losses in its credit default swaps business that insure multisector CDOs,” Matt Nellans, a Morningstar analyst, said in a research note last week. “This $10 billion loss would equate to about 10% of the firm’s equity and about three quarters of earnings.”

So while AIG calls attention to the potential for spiraling losses in credit default swaps, bond insurers pose the greater systemic risk. Unlike AIG, the less diverse “monolines” remain greatly undercapitalized, and might not be able to pay claims to banks under the contracts they’ve sold. That means downgrades and defaults would cost the banks a lot more where protection was written by the monolines than where written by AIG. As the credit ratings of CDOs fall, the likelihood of defaults rises, which means that bond insurers need to keep higher capital reserves to keep their triple-A rating as insurers. Meanwhile, fresh capital is becoming more expensive.

Credit rating agency Egan-Jones said about $200 billion is needed to bail out bond insurers. But it’s anyone’s guess at this point. “It’s going to be big but nobody knows,” said Jim Keegan, senior vice president and senior portfolio manager at investment firm American Century Investments. “I’m not sure the monolines themselves know.”

As to the cost to the banks, Standard & Poor’s estimated that they have as much as $125 billion of exposure to bond insurers via hedges through CDS for assets such as CDOs. If the hedges covered about 40% of the face value, this would imply an absolute worst-case loss of $50 billion, S&P added, with Merrill Lynch being the most vulnerable of all banks. Barclays thinks it could cost banks over $140 billion, while Goldman Sachs sees it as between $70 billion and $100 billion.

Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer at J.P. Morgan Chase, said during the Credit Suisse Financial Services Forum this month that a downgrade of a bond insurer could prompt the bank to lose on the order of a “couple hundred million” dollars, according to a report by independent credit research firm CreditSights. And the default of a monoline would have much greater impact, comparable to that of the failure of a major financial institution, CreditSights said. Merrill Lynch, for example, took a hit to earnings of $3.1 billion as a result of losses on hedges arranged through CDS issued by bond insurers, mostly ACA Capital, after the bond insurer lost its investment-grade rating last month.

This is why banks have been enlisted to help bail out the monolines. Greenhill & Co. is working with Ambac and a consortium of eight banks including Citigroup and UBS, to craft a plan. At the same time, New York State insurance superintendent Eric Dinallo has offered his own bailout project. A separate consortium of banks is looking at plans for Financial Guaranty Insurance, another bond insurer.

“Current talk is that the negotiations are focused on unwinding a portion of the swaps used to insure riskier CDOs,” Rob Haines, analyst at CreditSights, wrote last week in a report. “In exchange for commuting a portion of these contracts, the banks would receive an equity stake through warrants.”

Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York said last week during a congressional hearing that if a recapitalization wasn’t possible and couldn’t be done in a timely fashion, the next step would be to split bond insurers’ business between insuring municipal bonds, which is still sound, and insuring structured finance products, which is where insurers have been struggling.

“Certainly in the near term, we’d like to see a recapitalization,” he said. “If that doesn’t happen, we’d be forced to act sooner than later. We would peel off the municipal business…to restore municipal bonds.” He called it a “good bank/bad bank structure,” which was last seen prominently during the S&L bailout of the late 1980s.

“The concern with a downgrade [of a bond insurer] is that it would have a cascading effect,” Mr. Spitzer said. “It could then generate write-downs at financial services companies.”

But while Mr. Spitzer acknowledged that the potential downgrade of bond insurers would have an “enormous impact” on the financial services sector, he said that the priority was to deal with governments and municipalities, which have seen an increase in their cost of debt as a result of the problems surrounding some bond insurers. That increase could be passed on to taxpayers if the pressure persists.

So even if regulators come up with a bailout plan, it seems inevitable that banks will have to raise more capital to bulk up their reserves as they face more write-downs, with the next round resulting from credit default swaps gone bad. FW
 
Am I happy ???

Perhaps, the better question is are you unhappy? - that AIG got bailed out and, in the process, the U.S. economy wasn't severely damaged ??? No, I'm not happy that I will have to help pay for someone else's Greed (where is his ass anyway?) from which I didn't benefit. On the other hand, I'm not interested in damaging the spigot (the U.S. economy) from which I too drink.

Also, from what I've read, the problem with the market, etc., has not a damn thing to do with the many municipal and governmental borrowers (whom I mentioned earlier). Sure, AIG may be an insurer of municipal bonds, but its NOT MUNICIPAL BONDS that poses the problem. Is it ???

QueEx
 
<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116537475/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116537475/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>
<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116546525/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116546525/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top