About Me

Name: rycK
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Papandreou Bawls about Derivatives. Perhaps they are more of a Benefit than a Liability for a Failed State.

Papandreou Bawls about Derivatives. Perhaps they are more of a Benefit than a Liability for a Failed State.

 

Abstract: Greece is seeking either alms or ‘regulations’ that will end the credit default swap system [CDS] as we know it. Greece complains of high interest rates because of the ‘insurance’ necessary to guarantee some payments to lenders if they default. It appears that the CDS system actually offers Greece a lower rate. But, regulations such as open inspection and minimum capital reserves would probably mean the end of this derivative. The Greeks are apparently shopping for alms and they head to the US, of course.

 

Leftist governments can only exist on spending other people’s monies and this is an example of this disease.  Here, some quest for ‘political support’ is being requested.

 

Greece is seeking political, not economic, support, Prime Minister George Papandreou said on Monday (March 8th), urging the G20 nations to impose more stringent regulations on hedge funds.

 

"We're not asking for money. We're not asking for bailouts," the leader of Greece's left-wing PASOK party said, following talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the first day of his four-day visit to Washington.”[1]--Greece's Papandreou calls for stiffer hedge fund regulation Market speculation must be reined in if a future world economic crisis is to be avoided. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

 

Now, the issue here, obviously, is the extra interest on the Greek debt burden due to the cost of insuring a default on bonds issued from time to time.  There are several cases we could examine in light of existence of default swaps and other derivatives[2] from history.

 

Before such ‘insurance’ on debt was available in world markets, a bond holder was at risk of a default or a currency debasement, two favorite avenues for governments to take when they overspend and cannot meet their debt obligations as we read in the new book This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly[3] by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. This tome reviews this very process of overspending, massive debt, bank crises and inevitable defaults that plague California, Greece, New York and other entities and shows that they are very common in the last several centuries.

 

In the 30s, bonds failed and banks failed and then governments failed and there was nobody to cover the debts. Banks closed never to open again. Wealth was lost. In 2008, most banks and some other selected companies were rescued by the central banks or their equivalent. The fed was reported to have spent around 7.36 to 7.79 trillion dollars [depending on what you think was spent or not] by Nov 2008 on items like these:

 

Government Entity

Amount Allocated in Millions of Dollars

Spent/Lent In Billions of Dollars

Federal Reserve:

 

 

(TAF) Term Auction Credit (allocated)

900

415.3

Discount Window Lending

 

139.3

Banks (other loans primary credit)

 

92.6

Investment Banks (other loans Primary dealer and other broker-dealer credit)

 

46.6

Loans to buy ABCP (other loans Asset-backed commercial paper money market mutual fund liquidity facility)

 

661.9

AIG (allocated minus Treasury 40B)

112.5

87.4

Bear Stearns (initial loan to JPMorgan)

29.5

26

(TSLF) Term Securities Lending Facility

22

200

Swap Lines (other federal reserve assets)

 

601

(MMIFF) Money Market Investor Funding Facility (allocated)

540

 

(CPFF) Commercial Paper Funding Facility *upper limit from Reuters

1800

270

(TALF) Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility

200

200

GSE MBS NO NAME Program

600

600

Treasury:

 

 

(TARP) Treasury Asset Relief Program

700

330

Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee principal in money market mutual funds

50

 

Treasury direct purchases of MBS since Sept.

26

 

Citigroup (Treasury+FDIC guarantees)

238

 

FDIC:

 

 

Guarantees for Banks

1900

 

Other:

 

 

Automakers

25

 

(FHA) Federal Housing Administration

300

 

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac

350.

 

TOTAL

3.76 trillion dollars

7.79 trillion dollars

 

There was 601 bln in swap lines alone. It is not clear when this money went.

 

But, the Greeks want this:

 

“"If we continue to borrow at very high rates ... twice, for example, the rates of Germany, that would be unsustainable within a common currency," he said at a joint press conference with Clinton.”--Greece's Papandreou calls for stiffer hedge fund regulation.

 

This is true as stated, but, then, why should interest rates be the same for different countries even if they do share a common currency? IF the credit default swaps were not in place at this time then why would we assume Greece would be getting a better rate? Rates are determined by market forces and credit ratings.

 

The credit default swap [CDS] is complicated but functions essentially like this and is similar to insurance:

 

A wants to buy a bond from B, but the B credit rating is low or there are other problems so A is reluctant to take the risk. The interest rates are high because of known or suspected debt. A might take a bigger risk with a much higher rate. C steps in and offers to cover A in case B defaults or has other problems such as a restructure or a host of other variables. Much of this is unknown. This actually lowers the interest that B would have to pay because there is a market for CDS products and A accepts this as C has taken a small fee to cover loses to A. Here, B is Greece.  Now, A and C are investors, pension funds or speculators or banks. C might immediately sell its CDS in the markets. Hedge funds invest here with high leverage.

 

Wikipedia:

 

Insurance contracts require the disclosure of all risks involved. CDSs have no such requirement, and, as we have seen in the recent past, many of the risks are unknown or unknowable. Most significantly, unlike insurance companies, sellers of CDSs are not required to maintain any capital reserves to guarantee payment of claims. In that respect, a CDS is an insurance that insures nothing.” [4]—Wikipedia [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

 

Greece certainly did obscure its debt[5] and it appears that its defense budget is a state secret.[6]

 

Greece has since pledged to cut its 2010 budget deficit by 4% of GDP [from 12.7%] and has imposed a series of painful measures to deal with its fiscal crisis. But concerns about the country's massive debt levels have made it more expensive for Greece to borrow funds on the international financial markets and have pushed up the price of insuring Greek debt against default.”-- Greece's Papandreou calls for stiffer hedge fund regulation.

 

This is the era of ‘regulation’ so Greece and others want CDS issuers to have capital reserves, be open to inspection and other regulatory factors. It should be obvious that such measures might extinguish all profits from a CDS transaction and they would vanish from the market place. In that case, why would we expect the interest rates for Greece to go down? Without ‘insurance’ against a default they would, in my view, go substantially up.

 

We cannot trust the Greeks here, as usual given their record, and the salient facts that their unions are rioting and will set up general strikes against any and all spending cuts. Even if some cuts were made [4% is too much and where would the cuts be? Not in the unions we think] the GDP would certainly drop so any goals to the 4% line would naturally come up short in a shrinking economy.

 

Beware of Greeks Baring Bonds might be a useful slogan.

 

The Greeks have created this mess and they should pay the price. The high interest rates, alone, may prevent Greece from attaining a 4% cut in a year but a return to a 3% deficit is impossible in 3 or 4 years. So, Greece is looking for a handout and probably from the US in return for some ‘support’ on other matters. The bond vigilantes[7] are certainly looking for blood here.

 

Greece constitutes only 2.5 % of the EU’s GDP while California is some 10% of the US and the Greek antics look to being capable of pulling the EU apart so we wonder what effect CA, NY , NJ, MI, IL and MD  would have on the US [25%? or 10X the size of Greece] if they cannot get loans to close their debts and default? Notice that ALL these are leftist governments except NJ that only recently voted out the former chair of Goldman Sachs.  The unions are ganging up on the new governor Chris Christie like they did Arnold in California. Do we see a trend here?

 

Greece, CA, NY and other states are now just simple financial lepers[8] and will pull a lot of people down with them as they crash. This is a dance around the Snake Pit with no solution. The governments in this list will NOT CUT spending for any reason so they head for default or worse and they may burden the rest of us along the way. Leftist politics in action.  We dare not ‘invest’ in places like this because they have no hope.

 

rycK

 

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

 



[1] Greece's Papandreou calls for stiffer hedge fund regulation

Market speculation must be reined in if a future world economic crisis is to be avoided, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou said during a meeting with the US secretary of state. Reuters, BBC - 09/03/10; http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2010/03/09/feature-01

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive