Skip to main content

Coming of New and Bigger LTCM-like disaster

It has been few days since I read a book on LTCM disaster. Like everything a calm was seeping into me, with the gradual forgetting of contents. Then here comes the shocker, which pokes me grimacing and asks me “so, you think you were safe bozo? hahaha"

LTCM was an error of judgment from the managers of the fund. But it was history of repetition by the banks that freely funded the fund. Are we close to LTCM repetition on gigantic proportions? A proportion from which we may not be able to bail out from?

In the guise on an answer lies the first shocker. It begins of trying to explain the flat-yield curve in the scenario of rising rates. It states "why is anybody willing to hold this low interest rate paper if the borrowers issuing it are so vulnerable to default risk? The borrowers don't actually issue it directly. Instead, much of the worst credit risk in the U.S. financial system is actually swapped into instruments that end up being partially backed by the U.S. government." It goes on to add, "These are held by investors precisely because they piggyback on the good faith and credit of Uncle Sam." Right after reading chapters of Russian credit default, the nuclear nation default, the 'impossible' default- the connection seems ominous. The US default?!!!

Oh! that was mild.

"****bank is federally insured at the depositor level, and “too big to fail” at the institutional level, Uncle Sam is now a counterparty that effectively shares the risk in the case that ****** Company or homeowners default." This could well have been taken out the LTCM debacle. Government or Central Banks only come to the rescue till the day they dont come to rescue. There is no binding authority on these institutions that they have to rescue. Rescuing helps in the elections and politics. But in case of debacles in future, LTCM will be peanuts in size. Counting on the government's implicit rescue (govt will bail-out attitude) is the roadmap to nuclear disaster zone.

That hurt! Now the knockout!

"over half of the world's trading in the credit swaps market is concentrated among five banks...." "The trouble of one could quickly infect the others" "...is ultimately and perhaps somewhat inadvertently backed by the U.S. government."

The Swap market was $37Trillion market in 2003. The rates of growth of swaps are astronomical. It could easily have gone above $50Tr market. Any unwinding of this market in a hurry will make LTCM look like a school play. It is like nuclear weapons going off in rapid succession in the financial landscape.

Imagine……….

:) Falkor

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cognitive rules of business presentations

In his recent book, Clear and to the Point, Kosslyn explained that the four rules of PowerPoint are: The Goldilocks Rule, The Rudolph Rule, The Rule of Four, and the Birds of a Feather Rule. Here's how they work. The Goldilocks Rule refers to presenting the "just right" amount of data. Never include more information than your audience needs in a visual image. As an example, Kosslyn showed two graphs of real estate prices over time. One included ten different numbers, one for each year. The other included two numbers: a peak price, and the current price. For the purposes of a presentation about today's prices relative to peak price, those numbers were the only ones necessary. The Rudolph Rule refers to simple ways you can make information stand out and guide your audience to important details -- the way Rudolph the reindeer's red nose stood out from the other reindeers' and led them. If you're presenting a piece of relevant data in a list, why not mak...

Value of dollar - Part 1

A Simple Perspective Will Do The date is 2000-05-28. Don't you get tired of all the bad news bears reminding you of all these instabilities, excesses, and 'potential' tensions in the global economy? After all, hasn't it always been like that? Yes it has, but not in money it hasn't. Increasingly, investors find it harder to know where to put their savings. What about Government Bonds? Wrong. Their recent record of capital losses have wiped out your guaranteed yields, probably because the stock market keeps crowding them out, and this even in a strong dollar and low inflation environment. Furthermore, there is no reliable liquidity and potentially poor quality debt in the corporate sector. Foreign assets? Wrong. Most of the world's economies are riskier, have been under performing, and also, there is this thing called currency risk. Like how is the average person gonna cope with currency...

Depreciation of British Pound 1900-2000

When the Bank of England was formed the powers to create money was finally transferred to private hands. The creation of Fed in US, was just a part of this cycle. Though it is a common knowledge US Dollar has depreciated nearly 100% since the creation of Federal Reserve, the same is the case of all the currencies across the globe. For example, below is the UK Parliament data that highlights the depreciating value of Pound.