Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: NVDave
"So when the debt markets started creating these idiotic, almost illiquid CDO’s, CDO-squared, etc - they were, in effect, twisting their own rope from hemp grown by dubious lenders and mortgage brokers, . . ."

I have no time frame for these particular derivitives. This article sets it about 1986.

Warren Buffet puts the big shift at the time the big brokers went public. Before, they bet their own (partners') and private clients' money. After they went public, the risk was on the shareholders. The shareholders, of course, only make money after the partners took their fees, but took all the risk.

These broker IPOs started about 1987 or so. [And GS was the last of them to do it?] This is the big reason they wanted to void Glass-Steagall, so they could get their hands on bank deposits?

Long Term Capital was the first institution [hedge fund] to supposedly have global meltdown exposure. It was private. When it went bust however, Greenspan put the screws on the brokers and banks responsible for providing the seed loans that were leveraged and made them pony up hundreds of millions to cover LTC?

yitbos

10 posted on 11/01/2009 11:13:53 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: bruinbirdman

The article mentions CMO’s, which were one of the first packaged mortgage instrument outside the Freddie/Fannie secondary market. They weren’t all that liquid, and whatever protection that might have been used on them in the 80’s was even less liquid.

When LTCM went down, it was (again) due to the deadly combination of leverage and illiquid instruments, particularly with exposure to Russian debt markets.

Buffett’s choice of the timeframe is right (when they started going public in the 80’s), but identified only one of the reasons I think are behind this. The article makes an oblique reference to one of the other issues that is responsible here, and I think that is an over-reliance on computer modeling of risk on Wall Street. Before computers (or computing cycles) were cheap, portfolio analysis was based much more in business instinct and common sense, and much less on computer models. Computer models, as we all know, are GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Or as is more the case now, “selective data in, selective projections out.” The [over] reliance on computer modeling has seduced Wall Street pro’s into thinking that they have risk completely quantified and accounted for, when the truth is far different.

Another problem in the late 80’s was that the computers used at brokerages were overwhelming the exchanges. At some points in ‘87, the exchanges were running a half-hour behind in filling orders. Here’s some additional information in a paper by the Fed:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/FEDS/2007/200713/200713pap.pdf


11 posted on 11/01/2009 11:46:20 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman

The Federal Reserve is yet going to drag us all down, or blow us all up. Or both.


16 posted on 11/02/2009 1:26:49 AM PST by Leisler (We donÂ’t need a third party we need a conservative second party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson