global financial crash yay!

vimothy

yurp
Will higher interest rates necessarily hold down inflation? I guess they will for the proportion that is caused by Fed policy...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Is it just me, or has there been a bit of an increase recently in the number of people begging and dossing in London? Could just be that I've noticed a few more than usual in the last couple of days, of course.
 

vimothy

yurp
Yikes! The "Interesting Times", Macro-Finance Edition...

So -- Fannie and Freddie are rescued by the US government -- are we about to witness CDS armageddon?

Roubini explores some of the ramifications:

Today instead the US has performed the greatest nationalization in the history of humanity. By nationalizing Fannie and Freddie the US has increased its public assets by almost $6 trillion and has increased its public debt/liabilities by another $6 trillion. The US has also turned itself into the largest government-owned hedge fund in the world: by injecting a likely $200 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and taking on almost $6 trillion of liabilities of such GSEs the US has also undertaken the biggest and most levered LBO (“leveraged buy-out”) in human history that has a debt to equity ratio of 30 ($6,000 billion of debt against $200 billion of equity).​

Bill Gross, eh?

Lehman at death's door ("insolvent", even): will Paulson let it die?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Lehman at death's door ("insolvent", even): will Paulson let it die?"
So the lesson to learn seems to be, if you're going to take huge risks that could potentially bring down your company make sure that you are dealing in products that will fuck up lots of innocent people if you collapse - that way you increase the chances of the government coming in to save you.
I got turned down for a job by Lehman way back when, I hope the cunts go to the wall.
 

vimothy

yurp
So the lesson to learn seems to be, if you're going to take huge risks that could potentially bring down your company make sure that you are dealing in products that will fuck up lots of innocent people if you collapse - that way you increase the chances of the government coming in to save you.

Yeah, or even collapse the whole financial system and walk away with little real debt but still holding substantial real assets! Guess Lehman won't live to see that that, though. (Oh and Felix Salmon thinks yes, if at all possible, BTW).
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
So, bye-bye Lehman, bye-bye Merrills - crazy stuff. Not so long ago this would have been unthinkable but now the question is just who is next?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Roubini is predicting the end of the broker/dealer business model and that Morgan Stanley and even Goldman are finished as long term independent entities."
Interesting and he's been proved right with regard to two of the companies he mentions already - but isn't he being a bit simplistic? These companies have loads of divisions doing loads of different things so isn't it too concise a summary to say that they "borrow short and lend long"? And even if that isn't an oversimplification why can't they alter their model? And if they can't alter it and it's not viable then why would a foreign company want to buy them?
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Yeah they're doing different things. He might be wrong but does have a pretty good track record at this point. I suppose one might reply and say, "BSC and LEH were doing pretty different things. They both fried."

Roubini kind of expands on his thesis here:

I also argued in follow-up pieces that, in a matter of two years, no one of the remaining independent broker dealers (Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) would survive as: 1. their business model is now impaired (securitization is semi-dead); 2. they will need to be regulated like banks given the PDCF support and thus have lower leverage, higher liquidity and more capital that will erode their profitability; 3. Their severe maturity mismatch – borrowing very short term and liquid, leveraging a lot and lending and investing in more long term and illiquid ways – makes them very fragile – in the absence of deposit insurance and in the presence of only limited LOLR support by a central bank – to bank like run that are destructive even of illiquid but otherwise solvent institutions. Thus all such broker dealers need to merge with larger financial institutions that have a commercial banking arm and thus access to stable and insured deposits and to true LOLR Fed support. That process of unraveling of independent broker dealers started with Bear Stearns; now it is moved to Lehman; tomorrow Merrill Lynch will be on line; and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will be next. No one of them can and will survive as independent entities. So, the Fed and Treasury should advise them all to start finding a large international partner (international as almost no domestic partner is now sound to take them over) and merge with such partner before we get another Bear or Lehman disaster.​

Now, I don't know if GS or MS will be next to fall, but I can't disagree with the three points Roubini makes in support of his argument: securitisation is almost dead; regulation in support of the PDCF will happen and will erode investment banks' margins; and without lender of last resort (LOLR) help from the Fed, investment banks are inherently weak.

As for the foreign ownership thing, I think that Roubini means that US cmmercial banks have their own problems at the moment, but *brokerage firms* need commercial bank access to LOLR facilities and deposit insurance, which is going to have to come from (now much more wary) foreign investors.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Now, I don't know if GS or MS will be next to fall, but I can't disagree with the three points Roubini makes in support of his argument: securitisation is almost dead; regulation in support of the PDCF will happen and will erode investment banks' margins; and without lender of last resort (LOLR) help from the Fed, investment banks are inherently weak."
Well assuming the loan facility remains then there will have to be regulation I guess. Otherwise it simply wouldn't be fair. The question is how long the loans will be offered on such terms, it says on the link you sent that it will be until Jan 2009 unless otherwise required which basically doesn't mean anything except that they theoretically believe that it won't be forever. That's the big question I suppose - when will the whole thing be stable enough for them to stop offering the loans? In saying that investment banks are inherently weak you seem to be implying never - but if they are inherently weak why have they never gone under like this before?
I'm not saying that banks haven't gone bust before but for different reasons, in the past didn't banks learn from others' mistakes and change their model? What's to stop that happening this time? Or is he arguing that such a change would be so fundamental as to mean that they were no longer an IB? What is the definition of a merchant/investment bank anyway?

"As for the foreign ownership thing, I think that Roubini means that US cmmercial banks have their own problems at the moment, but need commercial bank access to LOLR facilities and deposit insurance, which is going to have to come from (now much more wary) foreign investors."
Sure, I see what he means. But how does this work? Big commercial bank swallows up the inherently weak investment bank and has access to the last resort lending as before - but it will use this facility to prop up the risky part of the company which would, under normal circumstances, be refused the loan?
 

vimothy

yurp
Oh shit:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. fell 12 percent, the most since April 2000, to $135.50. JPMorgan Chase & Co. retreated 10 percent to $37. Their shares were downgraded by Merrill Lynch.

Goldman Sachs was cut to "neutral" on the likelihood Lehman's bankruptcy will reduce profitability for the biggest U.S. securities firm. The analysts cut their recommendation on JPMorgan to "underperform" and predicted the lender will report a third-quarter loss.

Morgan Stanley, the biggest U.S. securities firm other than Goldman Sachs, fell 14 percent to $32.19.​
 
D

droid

Guest
...

The Wall Street crisis and the failure of American capitalism
By Barry Grey
16 September 2008


The end of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, two of the largest Wall Street investment banks, one week after the government takeover of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, marks a new stage in the convulsive crisis of American capitalism.

On Monday, global markets fell sharply in a sign of mounting panic and doubt over the stability of the entire US banking system. Throughout Europe stock markets plunged by as much as 4 percent.

The fall on Wall Street was even steeper, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 504 points, or 4.42 percent. There is every indication that the sell-off will intensify, with the full implications of the collapse of the two Wall Street banks as yet far from clear.

The immediate concern is the fate of American International Group (AIG), the world’s largest insurance company, and Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan bank in the US, both of which are teetering on bankruptcy.

The sudden demise of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch has removed a huge amount of liquidity from the economy, as paper values built up over decades of speculation come crashing down. This is capital that is needed to finance business operations, and its elimination will inevitably depress economic activity, fueling unemployment and recession, further undermining home prices and consumer spending, and further weakening the balance sheets of already financially shaken banks.

A sea change is unfolding in the US and world economy that portends a catastrophe of dimensions not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The fall of icons of American capitalism such as 158-year-old Lehman Brothers and 94-year-old Merrill Lynch can only lead to the further discrediting of the “free market” ideology of the US ruling elite, as well as its political and economic system. The spectacle of giants of capitalism drowning in debt piled up over decades of reckless speculation must inevitably discredit the social class—the American capitalist class—which is responsible for the debacle.

The bromides that have been uttered by the official spokesmen for the government, the media, Wall Street and the political parties over the past year of mounting financial crisis have lost all credibility. The assurances that the latest government bailout will stabilize the situation, that the US banking system is “fundamentally sound,” that the housing and credit markets are about to “turn the corner,” etc., reassure no one.

On Monday, President Bush mouthed such phrases in a brief White House appearance. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at a White House press conference evaded questions about who was responsible for the financial disaster and instead declared that he was “focused on the future.”

The presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made perfunctory statements that were remarkable only for their brevity and vacuity. What is widely acknowledged, even in ruling class circles, as the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression is unfolding in the midst of a presidential election. But it barely rates a mention by either the Republican or Democratic candidate.

Both parties and their candidates tip toe around a financial scandal of world historic proportions because they are equally implicated. They are both bound hand and foot to Wall Street and single-mindedly dedicated to the defense of American capitalism.

McCain issued a statement demanding “reform” in Washington and on Wall Street and pledging to bring “accountability” to Wall Street. This from a multi-millionaire whose campaign is being run by a bevy of lobbyists for Wall Street and other sections of big business.

His Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, issued a predictably mealy-mouthed statement complaining that “too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store.” While attempting to pin the blame for the crisis entirely on the Bush administration—ignoring the “free market,” deregulatory policies of Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—he offered a mutual amnesty between himself and McCain, saying, “I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems...”

These events are signposts in the historic failure of American and world capitalism. For the working class, they mean a rapid growth of unemployment, poverty, homelessness and social misery. The government, Wall Street and both political parties will seek to place the burden for the consequences of their own greed and incompetence squarely on the backs of working people.

The collapse is devastating ever wider layers of the population, including those who have worked on Wall Street and received some of the financial benefits of the speculative boom. Some 26,000 Lehman employees are not only out of a job, with few prospects of finding similar employment elsewhere, but as owners of 25 percent of the company’s stock they have lost a combined $10 billion, wiping out their savings and retirement funds.

Tens of thousands of employees at Merrill Lynch and Bank of America will lose their jobs in the merger of the two firms, adding to the 110,000 jobs slashed in the US financial services industry over the past year.

The broader implications of the mounting financial crisis were signaled by Hewlett-Packard’s announcement Monday that it was cutting 25,000 jobs.

Many of those who precipitated this economic disaster, on the other hand, will profit handsomely from the debris they have left behind. Hedge funds and other short-sellers, who bet on the collapse of corporations, are even now speculating furiously on the demise of the remaining Wall Street firms, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, as well as big commercial banks such as Bank of America.

William Gross of the nation’s largest bond fund, Pimco, took in $1.7 billion last week by betting on—and publicly agitating for—a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The emergency talks over the weekend, involving the heads of the major commercial and investment banks and led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and top Federal Reserve officials, centered on rescuing Merrill Lynch and orchestrating an orderly liquidation of Lehman. Under pressure from Paulson and the Fed, Merrill agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, the largest consumer commercial bank in the US.

At the same time, there were frantic negotiations over the fate of AIG, which faces bankruptcy unless it can raise tens of billions of dollars in capital. When US markets opened Monday, AIG was asking for emergency loans from the Fed to stave off collapse.

A failure of AIG threatens to bring down the entire credit system both in the US and internationally, because the company holds a large stake in the multi-trillion-dollar, unregulated market in so-called “credit default swaps.” AIG has sold CDS contracts to banks, hedge funds and big investors all over the world, under which it guarantees the mortgage-backed debt of a wide range of companies in the event that they default. If AIG should go under, the value of the debt which it insures would fall to an unknown level, destabilizing the credit markets and threatening a chain reaction of defaults and bankruptcies.

The events of the past two weeks demonstrate that the American financial aristocracy is plunging the entire country into bankruptcy. These events are themselves climatic moments in a protracted process.

For three decades, the “free market” has been elevated to the status of a secular religion in the US, with the capitalist market as its god and socialism as its devil. This period, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has seen the wholesale dismantling of the productive base of the US economy, at the cost of millions of jobs and the living standards of the American working class.

In the name of the supposed infallibility of the market, the operations of big business have been deregulated, removing all legal restraints on corporate profit-making and fueling the accumulation of ever more obscene levels of wealth in the hands of a financial oligarchy. A vast process of social plunder has occurred, in which the wealth of the country has been redistributed from the bottom to the very top.

The scrapping of huge sections of industry and the immense growth of social inequality are the hallmarks of the historic decline of American capitalism. At the heart of this decay is the separation of the process of personal enrichment of the ruling elite from the material process of production.

The United States has become the world leader not in manufacturing technology or industrial power, but in financial speculation and parasitism. As Floyd Norris, the economics columnist of the New York Times, put it on Friday, “During recent years, Lehman—along with many competitors—went on a borrowing binge to buy assets with as little money down as possible.”

By its very nature, the parasitism of American capitalism has generated corruption and criminality on an unprecedented scale. Wall Street CEOs have awarded themselves tens of millions and even billions in compensation, in an utterly irrational and socially destructive squandering of social resources for the benefit of private greed...

cont.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/lehm-s16.shtml
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"It seems to me that Goldman and Morgan Stanley have two options. One is to follow Merrill and sell out to a large commercial bank with a big capital and deposit base. That could provide them with sufficient backing for their capital markets divisions, which can be revenue and profit powerhouses in good times.
The second is to scale back heavily, or abandon, their broker-dealer arms and become more like big hedge funds or private equity funds. In Wall Street jargon, this would involve a switch from sell side to buy side, where most money is now made. In exchange for becoming much smaller, they might retain their high margins.
My guess is that Morgan Stanley will opt for the first and Goldman for the second."
Seems like a less hyperbolic assessment. That's kind of what I was getting at before - instead of selling they may just change what they do (for a while), although you may argue that they will no longer be an investment bank if they do.
 
Top