There was a wonderful story in today’s WSJ about how some big banks managed to lose some of their hard-earned TARP money.
The fun and games begin when multiple contracts get written on a single credit event and the notional value of outstanding contracts on that event– the total amount of money that is promised to be paid to the buyers of those CDS in the event of a default on the underlying asset– becomes larger than the par value of the underlying asset itself. Then it would clearly pay the party who sold those contracts to buy the underlying asset itself at par, relieve the original debtors of their burdensome obligations, and be out only $X (the underlying event) rather than some multiple of $X (all the contracts written on the event).
And so the WSJ recounts the tale of a security based on $29 million (par) worth of subprime loans in California, half of which were already delinquent or in default. Betting that the loans weren’t worth $29 million sounds like easy money, and the smart guys were willing to pay 80 to 90 cents for each dollar of CDS insurance.
It appears from the WSJ account as if little Amherst Holdings of Austin, Texas was happy to sell the big guys like J.P. Morgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Bank of America something like $130 million notional CDS on a $27 million credit event, used the proceeds to buy off and make good the underlying subprime loans, and pocketed $70 million or so for their troubles. The big guys, on the other hand, paid perhaps a hundred million and got back zip.
Said big guys, naturally, are screaming bloody murder, trying to bring in the lawyers to show that Amherst wasn’t playing by the rules of the game.
For my money, the first rule we need would be a law, not a rule, that notional not exceed actual.
Barring that, here’s another rule I trust: a fool and his money are soon parted.
Originally published at Econbrowser and reproduced here with the author’s permission.
One Response to “How to lose on a sure-fire bet”
This guy may have just figured out why we are in this mess. If only we could follow ALL the doolars to see who bgained and how. May explain why these derivatives exist and why they are actually so widespread. Maybe the “Big Guys” just got beat here at their own game.ClassG