“Where are the tumbrils?” asks my friend Adam Smith.If, like me, you have no idea what is a tumbril, it is a type of horse cart used during the French Revolution to transport condemned prisoners to the guillotine for beheading.What Adam wonders is how we can get so deep into such a hellacious financial crisis without finding at least a few bad guys to behead?
It’s a good question.
In one sense there simply have to be bankers or money managers of some sort who have benefitted greatly from the financial discomfort of the rest of us.On the other hand it is difficult to find many such people.Maybe they are hiding.I know I would.
I’m beginning to think there aren’t as many devils as one might suspect in this passion play. There are a few devils, sure, but also a lot of innocent dopes who may have made the situation much worse while not even making very much money from our pain.
A lot of it comes down to a probable misapplication of technology, something that hasn’t been discussed much in the coverage of this financial crisis.We talk for seconds at a time about the confounding complexity of derivative securities then quickly go on to something more understandable.
Is technology our friend in this mess or our enemy?
If we’ve got a tumbril idling in the driveway and really need to find people for beheading, there are still plenty of successful hedge fund managers to choose from.According to Institutional Investor’s Alpha Magazine, which comes out today, the top 25 hedge fund managers were paid a total of $11.6 billion last year, which isn’t bad for the worst financial year since the Great Depression.Most of those managers correctly foresaw the market fall and found ways to benefit while making as much as $3.7 billion for the year.I could live on that.Heck, I could live on the interest on the interest on that.
But most hedge fund managers DIDN’T make money in 2008 – a very bad year for their industry overall.I have an interesting take on how some of that could have happened.
Let’s start by looking back to the dot-com era, which also happened to be the era of the day trader.Remember them?A successful day trader in the late 1990s could gain a following over Internet chat then use that following to make money by becoming an alpha trader.He’d say “I’m selling this” or “I’m buying that” and copycat day traders would do the same.If enough of them acted they could influence the price down or up and – since the leader was leading – he could almost always liquidate his position with a profit.The quickest of his acolytes would make profits, too.Those who didn’t profit weren’t seen as exposing the inherent flaws of this system, they were just viewed as too slow.
To a certain extent, the heirs of day trading have taken the lessons of that earlier era and applied them with devastating effect in the Twitter Age.
If a bunch of wealthy traders get together at Starbucks and agree to short-sell a company or a financial instrument, driving down that price ideally to the point where it never recovers, well that’s against the law.But with trading automation and the Internet as a platform it is possible to accomplish this same end WITHOUT it being explicitly illegal. It is even possible that the perps don’t know the level of damage they are inflicting, though I doubt that’s true. The trick is to avoid communication.If there is no communication between traders there is no chain of causation, no conspiracy, just an unhappy accident.
Where the alpha day traders of the 1990s were squeezing nickels out of penny stocks and settling-up at the end of every day, trading automation makes it possible today for Wall Street to make bigger and longer bets against much larger targets, with the perfect trade being one that leads to the quick and certain death of its victim.
The ideal short sale, you see, is one that never has to be covered because the company or financial instrument being shorted goes to a value of zero.That’s WAY more profitable than making a few cents or a buck or two here or there before covering that short.It’s much better to go for the headshot.
But as I say, that’s also illegal.
The market hasn’t worried about this much because the SEC hasn’t worried about anything in many years.And the task is viewed as requiring so much financial muscle that it was considered impossible to keep such a huge conspiracy quiet.You can’t take down a Bear Stearns, for example, without a LOT of help.And you can’t get a lot of help without two-way communication, or so the regulators – stupid regulators – thought.
Remember government regulation is by definition reactionary.The regulators have to observe bad behavior before they can move to control or prohibit it.
What ISN’T illegal is for a trader to essentially train the market and then rely on a conditioned response on the part of other traders or trading programs to achieve his deadly end.
Think of this in terms of physics.Force equals mass times acceleration.In order to have the greatest economic impact on the market you need to concentrate your efforts on a single target.It is much more lucrative to bet that a single company will die, for example, rather than that a market sector will rise or fall.So choose a target, finding leverage on that target, if possible.Apply mass by getting (or attracting – more to come on that) a large number of traders and their capital to your side.Then use acceleration by acting as quickly and as uniformly as possible, ideally within seconds.The effect can’t be anything but devastating.
Remember the story of George Soros and the Bank of England.Soros quickly made $1.1 billion in 1992 by selling the Pound and finally forcing the Bank of England to devalue that currency, thus lowering Soros’s cost of covering his shorts and generating a huge profit.Soros’s success in 1992 came from believing the Bank of England when it said it would defend the pound at any cost.Well the cost was $1.1 billion, thank you, transferred into George Soros’s bank account.
On Wall Street the Soros story is always told with admiration because he beat the bank and won the game.At the Bank of England they probably look at it somewhat differently. What Soros did, though, was identify the algorithm that governed the behavior of the Bank of England.Then he found a way to take advantage of that algorithm and the Bank’s unwillingness to change or adapt.From today’s view what Soros did was hack the Bank of England.
That was 17 years ago.The average workstation running on Wall Street today has 1000 times the power of its 1992 counterpart.Trading data is today available vastly quicker and in vastly greater volumes than before.It’s time to think about program trading.
We don’t hear much anymore about program trading, which was something that seemed to play a big role in the 1987 stock market crash.Computers back then were for the first time managing lots of money automatically and it took awhile to see the dark side of that – massive trades that were un-commanded and unexpected and only acted to hurt the market.And those trades were very crude with only a dozen or so firms even capable of making them. This was before Soros when computers were FIVE THOUSAND TIMES less powerful than they are today. So we learned from 1987 to put some wait states in the code, to turn off the programs under certain rules conditions, and program trading hasn’t been much of a problems since.
Or so we thought.
Think about piranha fish.These little guys with their big teeth travel in large schools.They kill and eat their prey, which can be as large as cattle drinking in the river.Piranha, too, take advantage of force times acceleration.The trick is getting a lot of fish – hundreds of fish – to attack at exactly the same time.
How do they do it?How do the piranha know to attack?They don’t wait to bump into a cow leg under water.They don’t sniff for the smell of blood in water.Both of those responses are too slow and would lead to too many victims escaping.Force equals mass times acceleration, remember? And besides, piranhas have tiny little brains to go with their big teeth, so don’t look for any insight there.These are just violent little eating machines.
Piranhas hunt as a school and take all their cues from the fish beside them.Only one fish has to smell blood or bump into some food for the entire school to reflexively attack.
Now we’re back on Wall Street in today’s era of hedge funds and genetic trading algorithms.At any given moment in the market there is more than a $1 trillion in cash that can be brought to bear in seconds by computers that are functioning essentially like piranhas.The cash isn’t held in a few funds or hidden behind some mainframe interface – it is held by hundreds of workstations each operating independently yet as part of a global economic system – conscious or not.
These trading workstations are running in hundreds of offices, all scanning the same data.They have learned over time that certain signals lead to certain outcomes.They may be following an alpha trader but they don’t have to because at some point the market signal, itself, is going to be too strong to ignore.
Here it comes.An alpha trader makes a bold move against a firm or, more likely, against one or more of that firm’s financial products.Say the firm is big stupid AIG, an insurance company, and the instrument is a credit default swap sold by AIG.
Though AIG seems to have forgotten or ignores it, Credit Default Swaps act like insurance and are treated by the market like insurance, but they technically AREN’T insurance. They are ultra-hyper-purified demonic risk and nothing else.That’s because CDS’s are not regulated (they are in fact IMMUNE to regulation – funny that), they can be shorted without having to EVER actually own the underlying security (naked shorts of CDS’s are perfectly legal), because they don’t have to be owned the volume available to be shorted isn’t limited, and – here’s the best one of all – there’s no requirement that the trader have any causal, custodial, or familial relationship with the covered debt.In other words, while most credit default swaps are intended to hedge debt defaults, they don’t have to be.It’s like buying a life insurance policy on the guy down the hall because you hear him coughing at night.His death is meaningless to you so buying the policy is just a gamble, not insurance.
Here’s how it works in practice. The alpha trader senses, guesses, or maybe just wishes for weakness on the part of AIG and its particular CDS issue, so he shorts that mother.The signal from that short (it is big and aggressive, having as much force as possible) is detected by 500 trading workstations running genetic algorithms – workstations that are not regulated in any sense whatsoever.AIG’s CDS begins to glow in front of 500 junior traders.Some programs kick-in automatically and sell, too.The CDS glows even brighter and begins to throb as if its heart was beating.Traders pile-on like piranhas, sensing opportunity, smelling blood, until the CDS is oversold to nothing, until it is dead.
What we’ve accomplished here, through the miracle of synthetic derivatives, is buying a $1 billion insurance policy on a $10 million asset.
It isn’t investing, isn’t even trading, it’s just betting.
Nobody started it.Or at least it is impossible to figure out who started it.No one trader could have saved the issue by staying out of the fray (doing so would only have cost easy profit). There was no meeting at Starbucks.Yet the final result was just as certain.
The problem with this scenario is that conditions – primarily technology – have changed enough to allow what were always parasites to become true predators.Parasites need a healthy host to maintain their lifestyle.If they eat too much the host dies and the parasites die with it. But predators just find something else to kill and eat when all of one prey is gone.
In this case that prey is the American mortgage market, which is a fair proxy for the American economy.
Better make that two tumbrils.
I don’t buy it. At least, not as written.
AIG didn’t fail because traders sold their CDSs short.
AIG failed because AIG sold CDSs that AIG couldn’t cover when defaults occurred.
And I’m not sure that the kind of market exists where traders see the prices of CDSs falling in real-time on their screens. One reason that CDSs are a problem for the financial system is that there is no central market for them. Every CDS is a private contract between two counter-parties. No one knows how many there are, or who has sold them, or bought them, or what any party’s net position is.
The Lehman Brothers collapse led to credit events on CDSs with a face value of something like $60B. When the CDSs were finally netted out and settled, only $6B changed hands. If there were a central market for CDSs, we’d have know that the net position was $6B all along. As it was, *no* *one* knew the net position until the counter-parties actually paid each other on settlement day.
I agree 100%. Bob might have mentioned the role of CNBC in his naked short scenario.
I love the old video clip that Jon Stewart showed last week where Kramer pointed out that Apple Computer is an easy mark because they rarely comment to defend themselves against these attacks.
>Credit Default Swaps act like insurance and are treated by the market like insurance, but they technically AREN’T insurance. I Can’t Believe It’s Not Insurance !
https://www.businessinsider.com/congressman-says-aig-sold-snake-oil-without-even-having-the-oil-2009-3
Technically not insurance? Yes to be called insurance you need to have something to back it up(besides snake oil/margarine). Technically it might be called fraud to call it insurance. The bankers probably spoke the words ‘insured/insurance’ – but never wrote them down…
>Nobody started it. Or at least it is impossible to figure out who started it.
Nobody started it? Phil Gramm started it with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that legalized Credit Default Swaps:
Because financial instraments cannot be protected they are a commodity. These derivatives alow these snake oil salesmen to differentiate their oil from other oil. The game is up when the suckers quit purchasing your oil alah Bear sterns.
Ah thank you Bob, clearly our “free” market is just too free and we need just a few more regulations to patch it right up.
Seriously though, you’re on to something with the hacking reference, but you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. Our financial regulatory system is like a bloated, crufty old legacy system at this point, and layering on a patch for this most recent “security flaw” is just going to provide new hacking opportunities for the next black hat.
We’d be better off simplifying than expanding it.
you are hopelessly naive.
Bob,
So, what’s the impact (if any) of the uptick rule?
And if the old one wouldn’t work today, what would you do to short circuit the piranhas?
I suppose its like any system based on simple rules, they can be bent. Someone is always looking for a way to beat the system.
IF you would study economics you’d see this whole thing in a different light. Its the natural consequence of government meddling in the economy.
The tumbrils need to come for Bush, Clinton, Greenspan and Bernake, to start.
But as long as most people are gullible enough to let government pass the buck, government will be able to keep victimizing them.
Also, because I understood economics, I’ve not done poorly thru this crisis– I saw it coming.
Its not to late for you or your readers. http://mises.org/money.asp or read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.
Eco Fan,
My apologies for being blunt; however, but your comment sounds a bit belittling to Bob. Keep your mind open to honest and well reasoned opinions from both sides of the economic spectrum. Many can make impressive sounding arguments that are not well grounded in real world experience.
Economics is a complex subject with level of understanding ranging from very basic to those with Doctoral degrees. In my humble opinion regurgitating internet posts such as “http://mises.org/money.asp or read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt” does not constitute a deeper understanding of economics (Macro Economics in particular).
Although I have an advanced layperson interest in Economics (a college minor 25+ years ago) it is not my area of expertise. I read and receptive to inputs from respected economists of the fiscal constraint school (John Williams) and proponents of more active government involvement (James Galbraith, Paul Krugman, etc…). Who is right? I don’t know.
IMO, expressing an opinion is fine but telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about unless you are truly proficient in this field is not. I don’t know whether Bob is FOS or not. If I find an article interesting enough to truly stimulate my interest I would research it to either substantiate or refute its claims (or continue reading responses to article)
Respectfully,
Trent
I think some of the point that economics fan is trying to make is that outside factors (ones that were governmental decisions in many cases) lead to the need drive to the need to derive profits in this manner. Greenspan’s 1 and 2% interest made loans so unprofitable that the bankers were forced to look for more borrowers to make a profit, and that likely created the pool, and subprime markets (and leveraged businesses) that needed “insuring”, then leading to the huge amount of target CDS’s.
But what do I know, I almost have a minor in economics, with a major in Art of all things, and I’m a computer programmer.
Bob, extremely well done. The Credit Default Swap was invented a few years ago by a young Cambridge University mathematics graduate, Blythe Masters, hired by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank in New York. The then-fresh university graduate convinced her bosses at Morgan Chase to develop a revolutionary new risk product, the CDS as it soon became known. It is interesting to note the leaders of JP Morgan had a good understanding of the value and risks of CDS. They limited their use of and exposure to CDS.
Many other institutions saw what JP Morgan was doing and set up their own programs without knowing, understanding, or maybe even caring about the risks. While JP Morgan backed off, countless other institutions got into a race on who can have the most CDS’s.
I had a very memorable history professor in college. In fact his 70th birthday is this weekend. In the final lecture of his “History of Science and Technology” class, the theme was “May you live in interesting times.” In it he recapped all the problems that plagued society from the misuse of technology — and the problems awaiting us. It was a very somber 50 minutes. He loved messing with our minds, so I suspect he enjoyed watching a room full of bright eyed college students become depressed.
Technology is a wonderful and very dangerous thing. One needs to fully understand it and its risks before deciding to use it. We don’t of course and then pay a terrible price. This is another example of history repeating itself.
Anyone with any useful knowledge, insight or had a hand in our current fiasco, please contact bailout@michaelmoore.com. No jokes, this his next film. The story about the history of CDS is very interesting. Despite the lessons of Barings Bank fifteen years ago, Alan Greenspan, the SEC and sitting Congress of 1999 dropped the ball completely.
Michael Moore? Who is fool enough to add their voice to that hack?
I would be careful about just relying on Wikipedia for your facts. JPMorgan Chase did not even exist when this product was invented, the Chase takeover of JP did not happen until then end of 2000 several years after CDS trading began in approximately 1995.
It is also unfair to name a individual “inventor” for want of a better word, there were many people involved in the creation of the CDS and the many other derivative products the JPMorgan pioneered.
“The Credit Default Swap was invented a few years ago by a young Cambridge University mathematics graduate, Blythe Masters…”
So it really was the work of one of the Masters of the universe…:-)
Bob, I think you overthought this one.
The simpler explanation is that the ratio of “investor oversight” to “dollars in the system dipped” dramatically in the last 20 years.
The culprit is the 401(k) and 403(b).
Yes, these investment vehicles are indispensable and have done a lot of good, but in the end it has injected a huge sum of cash into the markets that does not come with the same degree of scrutiny and oversight.
Most people with 401(k)s can’t name any of the companies in which they have a stake. They aren’t voting proxies, they aren’t scanning balance sheets, they aren’t examining CEO pay, and aren’t following their money in the news.
It’s an Unintended Consequence that trillions of dollars went into play, and there were no additional eyeballs watching where they went.
I don’t know what the fix for that is, because clearly there are huge benefits for those who engage in program investing, and reap the rewards of diversification and dollar-cost averaging.
How about we behead the top 25 hedge fund managers? That would satisfy most peoples’ bloodlust. It would also provide a bit of perspective for all concerned. Americans’ seem to like capital punishment so get to it.
Cheers,
Alan Tomlinson
I think those were the guys betting against the runaway bubble, i.e. the sane ones putting on the brakes …
Bob,
Could you please clean up the ad spam on this site? All the ‘Live and work in the USA: congratulations you’ve won one free year’ and ‘Virus alert! Your PC may be infected, click here to disinfect’ is nothing but insulting to your readership.
??????????
There’s something wrong with your PC, there’s nothing on this website. Are you running an anti-virus program, like Norton, Ad-Aware or AVG? What browser are you running?
Ahhh, the wonderful, wonderful difference between browsing with Internet Explorer, and browsing with Firefox & Ad Block.
Strangely enough, I personally choose the latter…
Personally, Firefox and Sea Monkey (formerly the original Mozilla browser). Sea Monkey loads up very quickly compared to my Firefox because it doesn’t have all the add-ons, themes and Greasemonkey apps I packed into my Firefox browser.
I second the comment on the ads. Free visa years, Flat stomachs, YA Virus detected. Mostly in pseudo-windows visuals. Nothing wrong with my PC (it’s a Mac), but the ads you serve really do piss me off. I return because I read your stuff, but the ads served really diminish the experience.
Also never seen any ads like you describe.
Something is wrong with your computer.
I think you’ve got something about positive feedback loops that run wild. In audio, you’ll hear a pop. In finance, you get a different kind of pop.
But you make a big mistake because every CDS gamble needs a counterparty.
You write “What we’ve accomplished here, through the miracle of synthetic derivatives, is buying a $1 billion insurance policy on a $10 million asset.” Well, who sold the insurance policy? The genetic algorithm only works if someone is stupid enough like AIG to take that big of a market risk without being hedged.
As a good example, think about betting on the Super Bowl. There may be $1 billion in bets flowing through the Las Vegas sportsbook, but the bookies are supposed to set the odds so people will be pretty equal on both sides (i.e. hedged). If too many people bet on the Patriots, the sportsbook has got mechanisms to deal with this, they can let the odds adjust. Or a sportsbook could stop taking the bets. So, if AIG did in fact lose $1 billion, it failed to put limits on the amount of bets to take and it didn’t adjust the odds. A genetic algorithm will exacerbate it if AIG can’t adjust the odds quickly enough when volumes spike in one direction.
But, I think the real reason AIG tanked was that lots of AAA rated securities defaulted. It wasn’t because there was tons more volume. A company heavily leveraged can easily fail on a few bad bets.
Maybe some day we’ll know, if anyone bothers to look closely at the Lehman books.
I’d like to piggy-back on this comment. I don’t see how the “other side” of this works. Bob says that naked shorts (of CDSs) were being sold — sold by an array of workstations. Ideally running the value to zero. Then you need a separate array of workstations (running different algorithms coming to the conclusion that the value of the CDS will go up), thus agreeing to buy the CDS is projected as a profitable gamble. You have to have sellers/buyers, or winners/losers. Bob appears to be describing this as one-sided, with no losers. To make money on selling short, you need someone to agree to buy those instruments at the later, lower price. I still don’t get it — who exactly was on the other end of those short-sells???
I think there is a short circuit in Cringely’s explanation. CDS’s are a tool used to perform short sales, but CDS’s and other shorting devices are rarely used to short CDS’s because CDS’s are not publicly traded assets and thus are difficult to value.
CDS’s are basically insurance, except I can use a CDS to insure an asset for more than it is worth or to insure an asset that I don’t own. If the insured asset(not the CDS) fails, the issuer of the CDS pays me a contractually obligated sum of money. They might also pay me some money(a collateral call), if it appears that the asset will fail. Collateral call clauses are normally written into the CDS contracts and are triggered off a downgrade in the rating of the insured asset.
*Maybe* you could use a CDS to short a CDS, but it must have been *very uncommon*. Since CDS’s weren’t publicly traded, it would be hard to value the shorted CDS to determine what collateral calls should be issued on the shorting CDS, or even determine how to issue the CDS of CDS in the first place. It is this lack of public trading on these instruments that is also exacerbating the current crisis. Since they are essentially secret tools, no one can determine what the secret price should be.
The analogy with the piranhas seems correct, just the mechanism/terminology seems wrong.
Watch this video for a quick and clear introduction to the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEI6PkGZK8
Change the word “banker” in this Non-Sequiter comic to “hedge fund manager” and label the volcano Mount Redoubt.
How bank services work then and now
Hey commenters, I think you’re missing at least one key theme of the Bob X man’s piece… emergent behavior. Historical accuracy, economics theory accuracy and spelling are all somewhat optional to the exploration of this topic, in my opinion.
He starts by noting a lot of bad stuff that’s happened despite the lack of clear bad people who caused it. His conclusion: the crash is an emergent phenomenon, created by the rules of the game itself. He then goes on to explain what I read as just one example of many possible ways that a person understanding the notion of emergent behavior can achieve their goals (usually making money, possibly governmental destabilization, rarely unbridled charity.)
It’s not at all unlike any of the Ocean’s 11/12 (is there a 13?) movies. The well-dressed crooks understand the default behaviors of the actors in the system (police, guards, lighting systems, alarm systems, responding lawyers, etc) and orchestrate them into ironically giving away their loot. The irony stems from the fact that they all played their role, namely of defending the loot, but lost it nonetheless.
Not sure if links are welcome to please feel free to edit/remove but I did a little theorizing in 2006 about emergent behavior as it relates to things like media, healthcare, government, etc:
https://www.joereger.com/entry-logid1-eventid4807-Large-Entities-Viewed-as-Emergent.log
Take care. And btw, me not having any idea what i’m talking about is a common emergent behavior.
Its true that he has a bigger theme in mind, and emergent behavior is interesting, no doubt. But I don’t really think there is much novel about it. The behavior of macro variables in the economy and the means by which they serve as signals has been an emergent factor in human economics, for probably as long as humans have been trading things.
There has been a boom-bust cycle for as long as there has been history. For all I know it is hardwired in an evolutionary-way, a permanent Jungian archetype that is the result of thousands of years of agrarian culture, where years of necessity and years of plenty were in common alternation and essentially unavoidable.
I think that not much has changed since then. The scale and speed of transactions is much faster. Perhaps the most amazing event is that by abstracting our currency we’ve been given a lever to nudge the global economy using interest rates. This is amazing by virtue of the fact that it made the Great Moderation possible. Still, every so often, our fields always seem to spend some time fallow.
The companies that Cringely describes are simply pack hunting, insofar as the same game theoretic principles lead to the same behavior in both Man and Wolf.
Oh, no doubt there’s nothing new about emergent behavior. But what is new is that somebody’s evaluating the current situation through that lens. As Bob X notes, current regulations certainly don’t. But if the goal of regulation is to avoid dramatic free market style swings of boom and bust then they may be missing the boat. Thanks for your comment.
Okay: A short seller borrows an equity and sells it because they believe the price is going down. If the price for that equity does go down, they buy it back at the cheaper price, and return it back to the person they borrowed it from. A naked short seller sells an object he didn’t even borrow. The trade officially still goes through, but is held up by a failure to deliver. It goes into settlement where the trade may or may not take place. Naked short selling is technically illegal if done on purpose.
The problem with Bob’s theory is that there is no market in CDSs. You can’t borrow a CDS, you can’t follow the price of one. If I wanted to sell a CDS, all I have to do is put a crayon to a piece of paper and write “CDS” on it and a price. In fact, this was one of the reasons CDSs were so popular.
Bob is right about the problem of CDS trading: You are betting more money on an asset than the asset itself is worth. This is why AIGFP could write up so many CDSs so quickly. The problem is that the price of the CDS depended upon AIGs “name” and its AAA rating. If that rating went down, they would have to provide more capital for the CDSs. As AIG pledge more capital to cover these CDSs, the lower AIG’s rating fell. This is the same downward spiral that killed Enron.
Much of the problem stemmed from the way AIGFP paid its traders. They got paid for the immediate profits that were rung up, and not for the total profit of the trades themselves. When the CDSs were sold and money came in, these traders made a ton. However, when the very same CDSs proved to be expensive, AIGFP couldn’t pay these traders a negative amount of money. It’s like going to Las Vegas, taking your winnings, but never paying your loses.
In fact, its the reason for those AIGFP “bonuses” we all heard about. Those bonuses weren’t bonuses as we think of them. To us a bonus is when the boss slips us an extra $100 because we did a really good job. These “bonuses” were contractual pay. It’s like your weekly paycheck only obscenely bigger.
Normally, traders are paid a commission much like vacuum cleaner salesmen — except when you sell a vacuum cleaner, you know that the sale won’t blow up the next year and cost you billions of dollars in sudden losses. Traders get paid between $1 to $40K per year, and then get a commission at the end of the year which is called a bonus.
However, in 2008, AIGFP realized that the CDSs were blowing up in their faces. It would take years to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, there would be no profit. No profit means no year end bonus/commission for the trader. No bonuses means that the traders would not be paid for their work.
And since no one will work for an entire year for a single dollar, AIGFP signed a contract with these traders. The traders promised to stay at AIGFP until 2011. At the same time AIGFP promised not to fire the traders without cause. As compensation, the traders would get the total bonus they earned in 2007 as their bonus for the next four years. Traders who earned more than $5,000,000 would get only 75% of their 2007 bonus.
The big irony is that Congress grilled AIG CEO Edward Liddy who wasn’t even around when this took place. The real culprit was Joseph Cassano who was the head of AIGFP, but now has taken his millions of compensation and gone home and is probably sitting in his Connecticut mansion, sipping warmed brandy, watching the Congressional hearings, and laughing his head off.
Anyone know where I can find a Tumbrel? I think I’ve found our man.
Don’t off his head, yet. First you remove all his assets, his capital, his toys, his family, his friends, his reputation – strip him of everything he holds dear, completely humble the bastard. Throw him under a bridge or underpass for three months – then he’ll beg to take a last ride in the tumbril.
“Those bonuses weren’t bonuses as we think of them.”
No, they were retention bonuses, and they went to people in the Financial Products division who were not the same people in FP who caused the problem. They were people who had been making money for AIG and who were still needed for a time to wind up what they had been doing slowly and carefully enough to not lose money so that their subdivision of FP could be profitably sold off.
They were people who could have left and gone to work for companies which were in better shape, probably for as much money as they would have gotten by staying at AIGFP, maybe even more, and without anyone threatening to kill their children.
Go find the resignation letter that wound up as an op-ed in the New York Times and learn what the congresscritters closed their ears to.
Bob and the commenters have a damn good start on a great science fiction movie… good plot, bad actors, and a morality play in three acts. And somewhere a Hero will save the day.
[…] “The problem with this scenario is that conditions – primarily technology – have changed enough to allow what were always parasites to become true predators. Parasites need a healthy host to maintain their lifestyle.” https://www.cringely.com/2009/03/344/ […]
A fascinating depiction of one aspect of the Compound Failure. Another is here :
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/04/0082450 (Subscription required). And here :
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
If more politicians hung out with people who actually made things the finance wizards would already have had their “Wile E. Coyote” moment, the longer it’s delayed, the more painful recovery will be.
Excellent article over at Rolling Stone that ID’s a few people who can stand to blamed:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
The rolling stone article is the best timeline of the AIG fiasco I have seen. Really good.
(Even with the inflamtory language, still very worth a mere mortal’s time)
Another good look from a former IMF guy:
The Quiet Coup
https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
Bob,
I liked the article. Unfortunately, your missing the biggest point of all… This has happened for the 189 years of the Stock Market. Just look at Tea Pot Dome, Sinking of the Maine, Hunt Brothers. People have been manipulating the stock market since it’s inception. The U.S. Government today is simply trying to dictate the state of the Stock Market and that is the reason it is FAILING. When you try to have the ultimate REACTIONARY system (Government) trying to control/nationalize a Capitalistic system (Stock Market/Banks/Insurance/Medical/Transportation) you end up with a broken system. Plain and simple. Get the Government out of trying to keep capitalistic systems from failing and let them fail. In a couple of years something better and stronger will appear. Simply put, let the forest fire burn itself out and there will be a beautiful forest in a couple of years.
On the other hand, if you don’t react and regulate, the honest investors lose faith in the market and take their money elsewhere. Permanently rather than temporarily as we see in the current crisis.
I have to think that a lot of the approach both the Bush and Obama administrations have taken to address the crisis is being dictated by China. If China loses too much money on its commercial investments in the US, it will stop buying US government debt as well. And then the $#!T _really_ hits the fan.
Bob, there are bad guys to behead here. Unfortunately, the bad guys are the ones with the guillotines.
The reason the banks failed was because they had made too many loans to too many people who were unable to pay them back. How could that have happened, you ask? For a complete history, please read this: https://www.freedomworks.org/crisis
I see you went to the Rcik Santelli school of blowhardiness and that the irresponsible, loser homeowners were the problem.
But, as this article points out, the tumbrils should be brought out for a whole host of others:
“…such inspections will reveal a very high proportion of missing documentation, inflated appraisals, and other evidence of fraud. (In late 2007 the ratings agency Fitch conducted this exercise on a small sample of loan files, and found indications of misrepresentation or fraud present in practically every one.)”
https://www.alternet.org/workplace/132849/this_crisis_is_way_bigger_than_dead_banks_and_wall_street_bailouts/?cID=1171501#c1171501
>the sportsbook has got mechanisms to deal with this, they can let the odds adjust. Or a sportsbook could stop taking the bets.
An incompetent sportsbookie is much better than inoccent cow – but it still falls short. The Bear/AIG bookie needs to have no collateral and deal drugs overnight to support his incompetent books. Also your Bear bookies incompetence would very soon cost him his life if he worked for a real crime boss. But wait – Wall Street firms all went public (the ROOT cause of this) and the share holders wont even knee cap him.
The fact that these firms were stuck with holding all this toxic assests make them look like inoccent victims(cows?) – they were NOT. The investment banks used the overnight market to fund their habbit. They overnight market requred collateral. The Bear/AIG bookie had a meth lab
that was to produce the needed collateral. Unfornatly the bookie had to produce more and more meth because value of meth kept going down and down.
At some point they overnight market just said no.
Bear/AIG != inoccent cow
S#!T/DRUGS = Subprime CDOs
I have seen some of the ‘instruments’ explained. But you never see description of the cargo of S#!T that sank the ships of wall street – or why they overloaded themselves with this S#!T.
A former dealer explains the game better than I can:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/houseofcards_03-20.html
Hedge Fund managers make “2 & 20”.
They get 2% of the money invested every year plus 20% of the profits. Even in a bad year where they did not make any profits, Hedge Fund managers still make 2% of the money invested with them.
For those funds with $1 billion invested, they managers still make a cool $20 million for the years work. Not too shabby in my book.
Bob,
If what you say is true – then you best bet nobody tries it against a gov’t backed currency (e.g. the USD, the British Pound, the Euro, etc.) as that would truly wreak havoc at a whole new level (e.g. you thought the Great Depression was bad? Do it against the right currency and the Great Depression will look like a minor recession). Alas, if what you say is true then that will eventually happen.
If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about your columns written since leaving PBS, it’s that you used to have an editor.
LOL. I have been reading Bob for years and years. Even at PBS there were routine typos, not to mention using CAPS for emphasis instead of bold of italics. Very annoying, but the content is worth the bother!
In a larger perspective, the hacking has been done at the judicial and legislative levels. This has a long and sordid history, going back to the monkeywrenching of the Dred Scott case, which was somehow gave corporations personhood. Fast-forward to the 1990s, where campaign finance reform was prevented on the grounds of ‘money equals free speech,’ which gave Wall Street and others the wherewithall to pour billions in campaign funds and lobbying into getting politicians like Phil Gramm to pass sweetheart legislation that allowed for practically zero oversight for these areas of finance. While computerized trading no doubt plays a big role, today’s mess would not have happened if Steagall-Glass and other Depression-era financial controls were still in place.
Regarding computerized trading, I’d say a good step would be to legislate that the final trades must be done by a human hand, and then institute a CAPTCHA system.
“Here’s how it works in practice. The alpha trader senses, guesses, or maybe just wishes for weakness on the part of AIG and its particular CDS issue, so he shorts that mother. The signal from that short (it is big and aggressive, having as much force as possible) is detected by 500 trading workstations running genetic algorithms – workstations that are not regulated in any sense whatsoever. AIG’s CDS begins to glow in front of 500 junior traders. Some programs kick-in automatically and sell, too. The CDS glows even brighter and begins to throb as if its heart was beating. Traders pile-on like piranhas, sensing opportunity, smelling blood, until the CDS is oversold to nothing, until it is dead.”
Bob, that paragraph above makes no sense whatsoever. At least do your research, do some reading, try to understand what you are writing about, before you make a fool of yourself by writing things like that. Better yet, stick to technology speculation.
One of the ideas I’ve wondered about is whether it would have been MUCH cheaper to bail out the homeowners–I think I’ve seen estimates that at the outset this would only have cost us 70-100 billion, and then let all the derivative things take care of themselves. Instead we’ve begun by bailing out these instruments that magnify the size of the bad mortgages many fold. I think.
After reading Bob’s piece it struck me that one of the differences between the two approaches is that if we’d bailed out the homeowners, made all the derivative securities good because the ground they stood on was suddenly good, then all the people who made a fortune betting that the country, no the WORLD, was going to fall into a hole like this would be losers. By doing it the way we have, we have preserved the profits of the traders that bet on the world economy to fail.
Maybe I don’t understand it at all.
It was NEVER about the homeowners, it’s about the Oligarchs and they’re not wanting to take losses. The banks are insolvent, their big shareholders have losses, and we’re all going to be paying for it.
There’s just too much money at the top of the inverted pyramid looking for ever greater returns and the money has nowhere to go. So, Wall Street just had to make stuff up…off book stuff. And we’re all gonna pay and pay and pay.
Yes, perhaps some fault lies with the machines – but – I still think there was a strong level of human collusion. If you doubt it, just look at some of the online sites such as ibankcoin.com to see where the traders gather to get their joint ideas on attacks, etc.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sUXYRhK1KQAC&pg=PA180&vq=mint&source=gbs_search_r&cad=0_1
As you can see from this link, they knew how to deal with flawed bankers in Anglo Saxon times….
Jerry
Ok, so the terminator killed the economy. That doesn’t bode well.
This “hacking” concept described happens to be how start-ups compete against entrenched industries. I’m sure the corporate America would love to neutralize all their competition from start-ups by finding ways of making “competing unfairly” illegal.
If there’s one thing America needs right now, it’s the creative destruction of most of the Fortune 1000. Without that there isn’t much hope for the economy.
CDS’s are not exchange-traded. There’s no reporting of sales of CDS’s, and thus, taking a position in CDS’s doesn’t show up on anyone’s radar except the people who you try engage as counterparties. Frankly, driving pricing on CDS’s is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to kill AIG — they were already dramatically underpriced so further driving the price down gives no benefit and would be exposing the fund to the same risk as AIG. The way you kill a company in this way is by identifying large holdings of the company and selling instruments that have actual value into an illiquid market — driving the price below the “model” value. You will note that this is what happened to CDOs and MBSs, and is why the banks are all “killed”.
The actual risk in trading in CDS’s comes from the fact that they are contracts and not tradable securities. If I buy a CDS and then sell it for a profit, I actually hold the original one and sell a new one — in the event of default, the money has to go through me. If I go bankrupt, all my creditors have a claim on the payout on the long side of the transaction, with the counterparty in my short position equal to all the other creditors. As I am probably leveraged up to my armpits, there are mere pennies on the dollar for all my creditors, and so I am equally in default on my CDS as I am on everything else. Smithson’s Managing Financial Risk covers much of this. For a historical parallel, read about the collapses of the crop futures markets in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Bob,
It sounds like you heard about naked short selling and decided to make up a computer technology angle to go with it. As others have pointed out, CDS weren’t exchange traded… so the whole premise falls flat.
The banks fell because there were runs on them. Period. They were leveraged. The loans went bad, and when people heard, there was a race to get their money out before it was too late. That’s it. It was that simple.
Don’t you have someone who can fact check, or at least reality check? I mean, if you are writing about markets, can’t you find an expert on how they work and at least bounce your ideas there first?
I don’t mean to be hyper critical. Your writing is entertaining and I come here once a week. But c’mon. Complete nonsense doesn’t cut it.
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Rise of the Machines – Cringely on technology . […]
Read this, and you will find patient zero, currently hiding out in London on the taxpayer’s dime, how nice.
This is a very good feature article and worth getting in print. Also perfectly compatible, but not redundant, with Bob’s insight on the subject.
P.S. No weird ads for me, and I am using vanilla IE. I think Simon Haines’ machine is hosed. If one feels a need to “pack a browser” you either need better admin support or you should be using a Mac!
As I stated above, this is a good companion piece to it:
From a former IMF guy:
The Quiet Coup
https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
Sorry to sidetrack from the big story of the royal screwing us taxpayers are getting from Wall Street and the US Government (i don’t trust any politicians, blue, red, lavender or green) ……………
The big announcements at WWDC is going to be:
1.)Netbooks … for developing nations only! Way to show up OLPC, Microsoft … and Intel! The netbook will use new cheaper cooler power saving chip developed by Apple.
2.)Steve Jobs leaving CEO position at Apple, but heading up a new charitable foundation, possibly distributing all those netbooks to underprivileged kids.
[…] 2009-03-30: in a particularly strange episode of life imitates art, Robert X. Cringely has an article on the role of automated computer trading on the collapse of AIG and the US mortgage market. He […]
Check out https://www.deepcapture.com for a whole ton of thought on this topic and naked shorting and lack of regulation in general. There are some good posts from professional traders in the comments.
The bottom line is the politicians and regulators are way behind the predators and our economy is the food.
[…] the Secrets of Parrots since 2005 Robert X. Cringley: Program traders did it with fast machines and CDS. Even so Cringley is pretty […]
Yes, investors and bankers are herd animals. But what spooked them? What did they sense as danger, without conscious knowledge of the source of that danger?
They panicked because they were out of business.
The personal computer, plus internet, plus the entire history of markets available to all, made the Big Brokers irrelevant. Anyone with reasonable judgement could make reasonable investment decisions.
The Big Brokers lost their monopoly. The only option remaining was to trade secretly amongst themselves. This secret trading is what has blown up. A meth lab blows up when the operators start consuming their own product.
The barrier to entry for responsible portfolio management is a personal computer and some common sense. The current arrangement is for the manager to have trading privilege on the customers account. No money is sent to the manager. The manager charges a fee. The customer can revoke the managers privilege at any time. Neat, clean, safe, honest.
Charles Schawb and Ameritrade spooked the Big Brokers.
Your first paragraph reveals the biggest misconception that the public has about the markets in general: They are not a zero-sum game. Just as a rising market lifts all boats, creating wealth out of excess demand rather than actual money supply, a falling market makes more people lose money than win. So just because I lost 40% of my retirement savings in the crash doesn’t mean that someone profited to take that money. It just means I failed to sell when prices were high.
Once you get rid of that misconception, the conspiracy theories make a lot less sense.
Yes, it is a zero sum game; well, unless and until the laws of thermodynamics are repealed. In the case of fiduciary trading (calling it investing is an insult to investors), nothing is built with the capital in play. It’s all moulah. Most of it goes from the many to the few. So, when you lose that 40%, the shorts DID make money on your loss. That’s what you can’t see through your rose colored glasses. Fact is, Bob got it right.
(no way to edit, so I’ll do it again. Bob: if you moderate, ditch the earlier one.)
Yes, it is a zero sum game; well, unless and until the laws of thermodynamics are repealed. In the case of fiduciary trading (calling it investing is an insult to investors), nothing is built with the capital in play. It’s all moulah. Most of it goes from the many to the few. So, when you lose that 40%, the shorts DID make money on your loss. That’s what you can’t see through your rose colored glasses. Fact is, Bob got it right.
Hey, i came across your url on youtube and i think it’s cool!
I absolutely love my Dolphin! I have it about 4 years now and solely needed 1 restore because somebody stepped on the plastic half that connects the ability cable to the power supply. I live in Mass so we use it for only four months a year. I have many trees that overlook the pool so we constantly have pine needles and leaves in the pool. The Dolphin does an amazing job cleaning the pool. I run twice earlier than emptying the filter bag. Cleansing the bag is a pain, however a lot much less of a pain than hauling out the handbook pool vacuum.
Have been looking for this software.Thanks!
A genuinely beneficial submit by you my good friend. We have bookmarked this web page and can occur again following several days to examine for virtually any new posts that you just make.
Great site you have here!
nice 🙂
iv been looking for this info everywhere ty
Grand merci pour ce blog, ce thème m’a vraiment beaucoup accroché. Grace à cette colonne j’ai énormément appris des nouvelles choses que j’ignorais.
Traffic Mayhem Review- Thanks because of this! I’ve been searching all more than the web for that info.
Hong Kong is the gate to China’s auto industry. Switzerland is the main European clearer of the platinum group metals, used in auto catalysts to reduce automobile emissions. In August, 1,981 kg of its 3,094 kg platinum exports went to Hong Kong, and another 252 kg went to China itself.
Im unsure in which you are taking your information and facts, however goodtopic.|When i has to take some time learningmore or maybe knowing far more.|Thank you greatinformation We wanted these details regarding my mandate.
my sister is a computer programmer and she earns lots of buxx from it*`.
Your url you sent me came thru, thanks, but it appears to not be working, does anybody have a backup, or mirror source? Just something that works.
Hello, I do not usually publish comments on blogs, as I wish to learn only. But I find the article that you’ve written earlier has very insightful information, and I discover it very informational. Anyway, I’m questioning whether or not you’re open for link trade, as I hope that we will agree on a mutual hyperlink trade agreement. Hope to hear a constructive reply from you, and have an awesome day!
Thanks a lot. It has been interesting knowing
Thanks dude. It has been special seeing
I usually don’t post, but discovered this text of great value, Thanks Author
my father is a computer programmer for Alwill Software and it is a high paying job*`”
Hi this is a solid web logs, would you consider being a guest writer on my blog?
great thanks man…
great thanks man…
I think this is wondrous I truly appreciate the informations shared therein situation I am going to bookmark this! Good Write-up, Each and every Situation is good Sufficient. Thanks for sharing with us your Wisdom of Solomon. You got a sure enough useful web log I be having been here reading commutation for upon an hour . I am a newbie and your ascendence is deeply much an fervency for me.
good thanks o/
Hi, Well this was definitely something new, I really liked it as I am new to this
good thanks o/
Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time… however it was another joy to see It is this kind of an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to assist making individuals a lot more aware of feasible issueGreat stuff as typical…
household insurance quotes
my job as a computer programmer is a very satisfying job ‘
My NYT iPad app crashes constantly
Thank you……
Roughly motivational place of duty you give rise to at this juncture. Seems to facilitate lots of relations enjoyed and benefited from it. Cheers and credit….
thanks
Your url you sent me came thru, thanks, but it appears to not be working, does anybody have a backup, or mirror source? Just something that works.
Fantastic as usual, keep up the good work!
Amazingly I can relate completely. Keep it going on!
I strayed this place a few weeks ago and I just can’t get enough! Please keep writing!
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time… however it was another joy to see It is this kind of an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals.
Great site to visit on a rainy day-Adult Entertainment
I only stumbled upon your weblog and like to say which i have honestly loved reading your blog posts.Any method sick be subscribing to your feed and that i hope you publish again quickly
Really it will help lot of people.yes
I’ve read a couple of of the content articles on your website now, and that i truly like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorites weblog website list and will be checking back again quickly. Please check out my site too and let me know what you think.
Our government and investment community created a chain reaction of economic decay.
thank you
info.
In addition, there is something strange about two air personalities coming from the same station. sounds like nepotism to me. I hope that WGCI regains some class.
tumbril, it is a type of horse cart used during the French Revolution to transport condemned prisoners
Our government and investment community created a chain reaction of economic decay.
thank you.. very nice..
type of horse cart used during the French Revolution to transport condemned prisoners
It is no surprise, that in the shadow of the world’s most spectacular high tech launch ever, the and grown its own market share.
why life might be found on Titan or Europa, et cetera, and no one seemed to be even remotely concerned about the impending invasion.
Corporate deals are often made for reasons other than perfect market logic, where a given CEO of one party or the other may want something in terms of achieving greatness. Building empires etc. So its possible that some company steps up
always so difficult to find explanatory to people I know now I would recommend you all congratulations…
Hey there, I would like to thank you for taking the time to make such a useful article
air travel, advertising, military spending, music, movies, rocket science etc, where
great spongebob games site. :=)
Here it comes. An alpha trader makes a bold move against a firm or, more likely, against one or more of that firm’s financial products. Say the firm is big stupid AIG, an insurance company, and the instrument is a credit default swap sold by AIG.
What we’ve accomplished here, through the miracle of synthetic derivatives, is buying a $1 billion insurance policy on a $10 million asset.
Nobody started it. Or at least it is impossible to figure out who started it. No one trader could have saved the issue by staying out of the fray (doing so would only have cost easy profit). There was no meeting at Starbucks. Yet the final result was just as certain.
useful for me, and That’s interesting
Here it comes..
What we’ve accomplished here, through the miracle of synthetic derivatives, is buying a $1 billion insurance policy on a $10 million asset.
Did not you accept comments for sure we can complete the data do not understand
Did not you accept comments for sure we can complete the data do not understand
Did not you accept comments for sure we can complete the data do not understand
[…] Are Magazines Doomed, Too?A post from BuzzMachine about the future of magazine publishing. […]
If you like Cn3D, I wrote a manual for using it to learn about DNA structre along with a lot of educational activities to go along with it.
Here is the slide from my presentation to CommunicAsia in June 2002 with the Connecting Cows in Canada:
an insurance company, and the instrument is a credit default swap sold by AIG.
When you adjust this gradient, start in the middle of the fold shape, hold Shift, and drag out to the bottom right of the fold at a 45 degree angle.
Did not you accept comments for sure we can complete the data do not understand
This is very attention-grabbing, You are an overly skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to in search of more of your excellent post. Additionally, I have shared your site in my social networks!
You have made this topic easy to read,This is a wonderfully written article. You must have done a lot of interesting and easy to understand. research in this area.
thanks…
Nokia was on the come-back trajectory. Not winning – I am not saying they were better now than Android or iPhone – but Nokia was turning the corner. And then Elop did this nonsense that destroyed it all.
thanks
Thank you very interesting and nice comments
it was quite helpful and told a lot.Thanks for writing this, Web Design
Thank you have been good for who do not know
you issues in this sense is obviously a very good site is full suits me very carefully, but with are more intensive follow-up will have mixed commentss and are you teacher mothers ?
Burada Seo halkları thanke. hause
Burada Seo halkları thanke. hause
I arrived on a litter and left on a tumbril.