For Superfreak: What Are the Toxic Assets Worth?

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Not very much:

Just how much should a debt vehicle backed by subprime mortgage bonds be worth these days? Two years ago, most banks and insurance companies assumed the answer was close to 100 per cent of face value – or more.

Since then, however, that “price” has clearly collapsed, triggering tens of billions of dollars worth of writedowns, particularly in relation to a product known as collateralised debt obligations of asset-backed securities (CDO of ABS.)

But as the zeroes relating to writedowns multiply, a peculiar – and bitter – irony continues to hang over these numbers. Notwithstanding the fact that bankers used to promote CDOs as a tool to create more “complete” capital markets, very few of those instruments ever traded in a real market sense before the crisis – and fewer still have changed hands since then.

Thus, the “prices falls” that have blasted such terrible holes in the balance sheets of the banks have not been based on any real market numbers, but on models extrapolated from other measures such as the ABX, an index of mortgage derivatives.

What has blown up the capital markets is thus a set of theoretical swings in prices that were always pretty abstract.

This takes the concept of virtual banking onto a whole new, terrible level.

But now, at long last, one shard of reality has just emerged to piece this gloom. In recent weeks, bankers at places such as JPMorgan Chase and Wachovia have been quietly sifting data trying to ascertain what has happened to those swathes of troubled CDO of ABS.

The conclusions are stunning. From late 2005 to the middle of 2007, around $450bn of CDO of ABS were issued, of which about one third were created from risky mortgage-backed bonds (known as mezzanine CDO of ABS) and much of the rest from safer tranches (high grade CDO of ABS.)

Out of that pile, around $305bn of the CDOs are now in a formal state of default
, with the CDOs underwritten by Merrill Lynch accounting for the biggest pile of defaulted assets, followed by UBS and Citi.

The real shocker, though, is what has happened after those defaults. JPMorgan estimates that $102bn of CDOs has already been liquidated. The average recovery rate for super-senior tranches of debt – or the stuff that was supposed to be so ultra safe that it always carried a triple A tag – has been 32 per cent for the high grade CDOs. With mezzanine CDO’s, though, recovery rates on those AAA assets have been a mere 5 per cent.

I dare say this might be an extreme case. The subprime loans extended in 2006 and 2007 have suffered particularly high default rates and the CDOs that have already been liquidated are presumably the very worst of the pack.

Even so, I would hazard a guess that this is easily the worst outcome for any assets that have ever carried a “triple A” stamp. No wonder so many investors are now so utterly cynical about anything that bankers or rating agencies might say these days.

After all, when the ABX started taking a dramatically bearish tone 18 months ago, many banks claimed that it was ridiculous that they were writing their mortgage assets down to prices extrapolated from the ABX, since it was popularly claimed that the ABX overstated likely future loss. Even the Bank of England appeared to share that view.

But with the ABX now suggesting that triple A subprime mortgage assets are worth around 40 cents on the dollar (depending on the precise vintage), the message from that might almost be too optimistic in relation to some CDOs. So where does that leave the banks? In reality we will not know whether that horrific 95 per cent loss is unusual until the rest of the CDO of ABS are liquidated too. But for my part, I suspect that the saga strengthens the case for financiers now biting the bullet – and conducting some open auctions of this stuff, to get a bit of market price discovery.

Hitherto, most bankers – and policy makers – have vehemently resisted that idea since they feared that public sales would produce painfully low prices. That is a valid fear. After all, there are very few investors in the system right now with any appetite or capacity to take risk.

But in a world where investors already feel utterly terrified by the inability to determine values – and the recovery rate on triple A assets has tumbled to just 5 per cent – conducting an open fire sale might now be the least bad of some terrible options.

After all, if an open auction ends up pricing mortgage-linked CDOs near zero, at least the capital hit to the banks and insurance companies will be clear; and if it is higher than zero, it might even cheer investors up.

Either way, until investors get some sense of what something might – or might not – be worth, it will be painfully hard to rebuild trust in capital markets and banks alike.

Those American officials who are implementing flashy new “stress tests” of banks would do well to take note.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2970532c-0421-11de-845b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
 

Again, for the 100th fucking time... yes, some of the assets have been sold at fire sale prices. Thank you for reiterating my point. Again.... while the packages have 'defaulted' ie... were not able to make either their interest payments or possibly a prinicpal repayment, that does not mean the assets are worthless. If a CDO had an interest rate of 6% and the cash flow was only able to provide 5%... that CDO is going to default. Yet it still has a positive cash flow. The underlying securties have value.

Again... since you are obviously a complete moron on this topic... If the government were to buy (whether on its own or in conjunction with private money) the assets and then unwind them, the taxpayer/investors would benefit. (so long as they do not overpay for them)

Again.... since you are so fucking retarded... THERE IS NO ONE SET PRICE FOR THESE ASSETS... SO CONTINUING TO ASK WHAT THEIR PRICE IS IS FUCKING IGNORANT.

Hopefully you actually read the above and actually comprehend it this time.
 
Obfuscate, Gramm leach Bliley act 1999 which created a situation where they could package off the sub prime with other financial products and sell them to an unsuspecting world market making them a huge profit generator. If they had not been freed up this way the market would not have consolidated creating a path to sub prime profit.

Its the fault of deregulation along with the Bush admin being unwilling to truely inforce the laws that remained on the books.

Deregulation fucks us every time.
 
Again, for the 100th fucking time... yes, some of the assets have been sold at fire sale prices. Thank you for reiterating my point. Again.... while the packages have 'defaulted' ie... were not able to make either their interest payments or possibly a prinicpal repayment, that does not mean the assets are worthless. If a CDO had an interest rate of 6% and the cash flow was only able to provide 5%... that CDO is going to default. Yet it still has a positive cash flow. The underlying securties have value.

Again... since you are obviously a complete moron on this topic... If the government were to buy (whether on its own or in conjunction with private money) the assets and then unwind them, the taxpayer/investors would benefit. (so long as they do not overpay for them)

Again.... since you are so fucking retarded... THERE IS NO ONE SET PRICE FOR THESE ASSETS... SO CONTINUING TO ASK WHAT THEIR PRICE IS IS FUCKING IGNORANT.

Hopefully you actually read the above and actually comprehend it this time.


I like that little parenthetical there. Isn't that really the heart of the matter, not an aside?
 
The govt should not have to buy those assets. The corporations should have to eat them.
It is the capitalistic way.
 
Obfuscate, Gramm leach Bliley act 1999 which created a situation where they could package off the sub prime with other financial products and sell them to an unsuspecting world market making them a huge profit generator. If they had not been freed up this way the market would not have consolidated creating a path to sub prime profit.
.


If it's so bad why isn't anyone suggesting we put it back in place? The fact is that when they allowed the investment banks this flexability they should have allowed them access to the discount window like the Commecial banks did then you could have regulated their liquidity and we would have never got in this place. I fully support capital requirements.
 
I like that little parenthetical there. Isn't that really the heart of the matter, not an aside?

Yes, on that part you are correct. It is the heart of the matter. Which is why looking at firesale prices is idiotic. To determine a fair value, you have to look at the underlying discounted cash flow, discount it further for future expected defaults. The price will vary by asset, so trying to put one price on them is silly. Some may be worth 25 cents on the dollar, others 50-60 cents on the dollar.

The government should come in at a price that is between the fire sale price and below the fair value. That would set a bottom for the assets. Once a bottom is in place, the open market can bid the assets higher when/if appropriate.
 
Obfuscate, Gramm leach Bliley act 1999 which created a situation where they could package off the sub prime with other financial products and sell them to an unsuspecting world market making them a huge profit generator. If they had not been freed up this way the market would not have consolidated creating a path to sub prime profit.

Its the fault of deregulation along with the Bush admin being unwilling to truely inforce the laws that remained on the books.

Deregulation fucks us every time.

1) GLB did not create these securities Desh. They have been around for decades. What it did was allow for the merger of financial institutions (traditional banks and investment banks) which in turn destroyed firewalls that were previously in place.

2) Greenspan keeping interest rates low, sparked a drive of fixed income investors towards these vehicles for the higher income. The rating agencies should be shot for ever rating this debt AAA (in many cases, not all).

3) The Fair lending act of 1995 also put pressure on banks to make loans to people who previously would not have qualified. This also played a large part in this mess.

4) Just curious, but what laws did the Bush Admin not enforce?

5) GLB was not the sole destroyer of Glass Steagall. Something that has been pointed out to you time and again. It began under the first Bush and continued under Clinton until GLB took it all the way out.

6) all that said, you are correct in saying that Glass Steagall needs to be put back in place and that its removal greatly aided this debacle.
 
Obfuscate, Gramm leach Bliley act 1999 which created a situation where they could package off the sub prime with other financial products and sell them to an unsuspecting world market making them a huge profit generator. If they had not been freed up this way the market would not have consolidated creating a path to sub prime profit.

Its the fault of deregulation along with the Bush admin being unwilling to truely inforce the laws that remained on the books.

Deregulation fucks us every time.

Side note... regulation also fucked us this time.

Fair lending act
regulation of interest rates by Fed
 
Fair lending act

Was not the thing that made the sub primes profitable.


Until everyone could make money off them they were no threat to the eoncomy
 
Fair lending act

Was not the thing that made the sub primes profitable.


Until everyone could make money off them they were no threat to the eoncomy

Yes the packaging , rating and selling those subprime bundles is primarially what caused the mess.
 
Fair lending act

Was not the thing that made the sub primes profitable.


Until everyone could make money off them they were no threat to the eoncomy

I did not say it was what made them profitable... but it removed restrictions on loans, which enabled more of the loans to be issued Desh.

To pretend they were not profitable before 1999 just shows you dont understand these securities. They have always been profitable desh. What made them so popular was Greenspan keeping interest rates so low for so long that fixed income investors had to seek alternatives.

So you are quite full of shit to pretend that people weren't making money on them before. In fact it simply was that there wasnt as much demand for these investments when interest rates were higher.
 
could you elaborate on the following a bit?

"What made them so popular was Greenspan keeping interest rates so low for so long that fixed income investors had to seek alternatives."
 
could you elaborate on the following a bit?

"What made them so popular was Greenspan keeping interest rates so low for so long that fixed income investors had to seek alternatives."

Sure....

When interest rates were around 5.5% to 6%, people who live off their investment income could get decent rates off of safe securities like Treasury bonds or high quality muni bonds.

When rates got down to 1% and Treasury yields fell, reinvestment risk started hitting investors. They could no longer find the safer Treasuries at the yields they needed to live off of. So they were forced to take more risk or to take a hit to income... guess which one most did?

The ratings agencies listing many of the CDOs as AAA... gave a false sense of security to these investments. So no question they are a big part of the problem. But if the demand had not been there, lenders would not have been able to loan as much money without keeping some of these loans on their personal books.
 
So they went for the bling instead of a more sustainable route? And of course those in the industry selling and promoting these new finiancial products had nothing to do with it at all did they?

You see I did not go that route, I went the other way.
I saw what was coming.
I have a friend who works for Raymond James. He told me I was screwing up royally when I put my funds in solid metals and secure bonds and such.
He has since told me he was wrong.
 
Last edited:
I did not say it was what made them profitable... but it removed restrictions on loans, which enabled more of the loans to be issued Desh.

To pretend they were not profitable before 1999 just shows you dont understand these securities. They have always been profitable desh. What made them so popular was Greenspan keeping interest rates so low for so long that fixed income investors had to seek alternatives.

So you are quite full of shit to pretend that people weren't making money on them before. In fact it simply was that there wasnt as much demand for these investments when interest rates were higher.



And they would not have been written at the levels they were written if they could not have been packaged off at the rate they were during the making of this mess.

The consolidation of the industry allowed this to happen.

No GLB act and no one would have been able to hide the mix levels.
 
And they would not have been written at the levels they were written if they could not have been packaged off at the rate they were during the making of this mess.

The consolidation of the industry allowed this to happen.

No GLB act and no one would have been able to hide the mix levels.

That is correct... and it is exactly what I stated. There are many things you can point to and say 'if this did not happen, we would not be in this mess right now (or at least not in as big of a mess)
 
Back
Top