Posted on 11/19/2011 7:26:37 PM PST by Clive
Anyone doing research into the 2008 subprime mortgage securities scandal inevitably comes across the Internet gem below.
Often titled “Derivative markets — an understandable explanation” but more commonly known by its first sentence — “Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit,” it appears to have been written in 2009 by an author with considerable understanding of financial markets and a great sense of humour.
And it provides a good, basic explanation of the origins of the subprime mortgage securities crisis that led to a global credit freeze and the ongoing world-wide economic tsunami from which we may never fully recover.
Without further ado, here it is:
•••
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit .
She realizes virtually all of her customers are unemployed and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.
To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.
By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.
Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at Heidi’s local bank recognizes these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit.
He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral!
At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure out a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINK BONDS.
These “securities” are bundled and traded on international securities markets.
Naive investors don’t really understand the securities being sold to them as “AAA Secured Bonds” really are debts of unemployed alcoholics.
Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by Heidi’s bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.
Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations to the bank she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Heidi’s 11 employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINK BOND prices drop by 90%.
The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank’s liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the bond securities.
They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.
Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
In addition, the laid-off workers’ pension funds and Individual Retirement Accounts all suffer substantial loss in value.
Fortunately, though, the bank, brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar, no-strings attached cash infusion from the government.
The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class nondrinkers who have never been in or heard of Heidi’s bar.
Now do you understand?
•••
If anyone knows the author of this piece, please let me know as I’d like to give him or her credit.
THIS was great! I am going to use this example.
The key to good drunk-blogging is to pick a phrase most likely to be heard. With these dudes, “unexpected” is a lead pipe cinch.
...and the part where the government limits the percentage of non-broke drunks she can “sell” to...
They left out the roll of IGA that we bailed out.
“Screw that — I’d like to buy them a drink!”
Buy us all a drink. Just put it on the tab.
Even if true, making a profit on inappropriate government loans would not justify the initial unconstitutional action. And can you provide a link to support that claim, not that we made a profit on some TARP loans, but that we made a profit overall on TARP? Personally, I hope every Stimulus,TARP, and Bailout company goes bankrupt, and I am boycotting them all forever to contribute to that worthy goal. If they disappear, the jobs and business will flow to more honest companies, so it won't hurt our economy, but it will hurt the crooks who accepted taxpayer dollars in a manner that was certainly immoral and would have been illegal if not for the disgusting actions of Congress (in response to the generous political donations from TARP companies!).
LOL, find it yourself.
and actually aig still owes trillions
Actually, AIG still owes the Treasury about $50 billion.
as does the banks of Europe
TARP didn't go to any European banks.
as does gm
Yes, TARP for banks was profitable. TARP for the auto unions will lose billions.
Fannie and Freddie will cost billions. Tens of billions. Probably over $100 billion.
I can't because we won't.
Personally, I hope every Stimulus,TARP, and Bailout company goes bankrupt, and I am boycotting them all forever to contribute to that worthy goal.
Good for you. Here's a list.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.