Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

Lehman's CDS Mess: Who's on the Hook?

by: Bo Peng October 13, 2008 | about stocks: AIG / CS / DB / GS / JPM / LEHMQ.PK / MS    

Bo Peng

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

On Oct 21, somebody [group A] will have to pay somebody else [group B] billions in cash to settle Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on Lehman. Estimates on what this entails range from $100 billion to as much as $400 billion.

Group A will almost certainly include AIG, the biggest net seller of CDS, and many hedge funds, who have been using CDS selling as their cheap (HA!) financing source for the past few years. Besides single-name CDS specifically on Lehman, other credit derivatives such as CMCDS, CDS options, or Nth to Defaults, CDX indices and bespoke CDOs with Lehman in them will also settle, partially or in full.

This will be arguably the biggest cash-exchange day in human history to date. I don't care how much taxpayer money the government will use to bail them out, somebody will fail.

Group B includes two types. One has Lehman bonds. They will be made whole by the settlement although Lehman bonds changed hands at 8.625 cents on the dollar at Friday's auction. The other doesn't have Lehman bonds. They bought naked CDS on Lehman. They will have a HUGE windfall -- for every dollar notional, they'll get over 91 cents. If they can collect, that is.

Back to the more immediate concern, who is in Group A?

You could pore over the CreditFixings' auction info and guess. I think a lot of people did just that on Friday. They pounced on MS, GS, CS, and DB, who happen to be the biggest Physical Settlement Sellers (meaning they sold CDS on Lehman). JPM shot up the whole day, which happens to be the biggest buyer.

But I don't know how productive this guessing game is. The dealers could be placing orders and requests for their hedge fund clients. Short of serious insider info, there's no way of knowing how much of those requests are for themselves vs. clients.

More importantly, physical settlement will almost certainly be just a small portion of the overall settlement size. Friday's auction had $5.7B in sell orders. Cash settlements will most likely be at least 10, and maybe 100 times bigger than that. People learned the lesson from Delphi. Furthermore, it'd be very unusual for banks to have a huge net position in CDS, with the possible exception being their proprietary desks and funds. Again, the most likely suspects are AIG and hedge funds.

Now you know what the government bailout of AIG is for - the initial $85B and then the additional $37.8B (suspiciously precise isn't it?). Don't be surprised if the number goes up again before 10/21. Will tax-payers get the money back after 10/21? Fat chance. Is the money really for saving AIG, or making sure others who bought CDS on Lehman will get their windfall? Take your pick.

On to the hedge funds. They knew how much they would need to pay since Lehman's bankruptcy. Reportedly JPM, GS, and MS have issued massive margin calls to their hedge fund clients, which is consistent with their sell requests (except JPM who, being the clearing bank for Lehman, may have bought protection) at the ISDA auction and my suspicion is that a big part of their requests are on behalf of their clients. Some hedge funds are being forced to cash out. And since Thursday some apparently went shorting in desperation, trying to make a quick buck before the doomsday. The 900 point surge Friday at 3 p.m. in half an hour showed how nervous and desperate they are.

In the meantime, of course, hedge fund investors must be withdrawing as fast as they possibly could, adding to their misery. Bankruptcy law will be the golden profession for many years to come.

WaMu CDS settle on Nov 7. Their impact is expected to be much smaller, although nobody can be sure, as is the case with all CDS. We may get some rough idea on its auction date, 10/23. If there are high-profile bankruptcies on 10/21 (banks, AIG), then markets will be spooked and all eyes would then turn to WaMu; otherwise it'd likely be a non-event in comparison.

If there were bankruptcies of anything other than hedge funds on 10/21 (or 11/7, though less likely), then we could be in a serious chain reaction. But governments all over the world would band together to stop it. Governments may be stupid and inept, but they're not suicidal. The Fed's discount window will stay open late on 10/21. For banks (or AIG) who cannot post enough collateral, Paulson will be ready to buy stocks in a heartbeat. If the initial $250 billion runs out that day, they can let foreign sovereign funds buy preferred stocks. It's a wonderful world.

Moreover, I suspect the pending doomsday is a big reason why banks have shied away from lending to each other over the past few weeks. Nobody knows how much anybody else owes on that day. Coming 10/22, assuming no banks fail, it'd be a huge cloud gone. Back to business as usual, or as usual as it gets nowadays.

Hedge funds' fire-sale exit may be creating a very rare buying opportunity in many financial markets (stocks, bonds, commodities, maybe even dreaded CDOs and mortgages). A few days ago I wondered if the bottom was near. Now I'm convinced the bottom will be around 10/21, if not earlier. The way back up may be painfully fast or painfully slow. But the crisis is essentially over unless we let the chain reaction take place.

Then we'll only have to deal with the massive debt, recession, and inflation. Piece of cake.

Disclosure: None

Related Articles

This article has 33 comments:

  •  
    Oct 13 09:32 AM
    If the Treasury & the Fed told the market it would have to pay the price for its foll this nonsense would be over. Bringing in Congress is like pouring gasoline on the fire.

    The Free Market works but the Capitalistic power brokers are bothered by that. Consequently, we will get SociObamism and we won't have a free market as the will control the Treasury, Military, Courts, Media (superfluous?) all without firing a bullet.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 10:00 AM
    I think Mr. Bo Peng's article is one of the very best, and most insightful articles I have ever read on Seeking Alpha. It goes to the heart of where we are in the global financial crisis.

    The Lehman CDS settlement on Oct 21st will be one of the biggest coming out events ever witnessed because of the scale of the numbers. Mr. Peng cites $100-$400 billion, while I think I saw the New York Times estimate the range at as much as $400-$600 billiion in an article at the end of last week.

    Think of these numbers -- $100-$600 billion on a single company's default (i.e., Lehman) relative to the US industry wide $750 billion rescue plan, or the Treasury backing of AIG to the tune of $85 billion.

    Yes, this single company CDS settlement on Oct 21st of $100-$600 billion is part of the $56-$58 trillion estimate of the global CDS market currently outstanding. Happily, Lehman is the only super scale level bankruptcy thus far.

    AIG and hedge funds seem to be the prime suspects for having to face the Oct 21 Lehman CDS settlement pay-out. Who else will take a big hit, we do not know. To further illustrate why Oct 21st becomes so important, just suppose the Lehman CDS exposure is concentrated in a single additional firm such as Bear Stearns, now inside JPM, or an RBS or DB?

    While European, Asian and American banks have stepped up to be commited to their respective large banks, if the CDS exposure is concentrated, the scale of the CDS settlement payout's impact on a bank's capital base could be mind numbing.

    No wonder interbank lending has virtually ground to a halt. No wonder LIBOR, as the best barometer, is nearly 5%. No wonder, as Mr. Peng explains so well, the banks were calling hedge fund debt last week, which in turn was a significant contributor to the scale of last week's equity market rout.

    In a nutshell, US housing price declines over the last two years, are the source of subprime mortgage problems, and in turn, mortgage back securities problems, which with asset liability gap mis-management and an inherent degree of high leverage, led to large bank losses and capital problems.

    But the big kahouna looming in 2008 has been the CDS settlement risk faced by CDS issuers in the event of a large scale bankruptcy (i.e., Lehman), and that day of reckoning comes on Oct 21, as pointed out and explained so well by Mr. Peng.

    As a credibility check on Mr. Peng's article, I checked the "Oct 21" web link at the outset of his article, which leads to the ISDA web site. To see the Oct 21 date, one has to click on "Lehman Brothers" at the top of the ISDA page, then click on the link next to "Protocol", and then click on "Plain English Summary".

    We're not out of the woods yet (as of today, Oct 13). Hopefully, the concentration of Lehman CDS issuer risk will not be too great. We will find out in little more than a week.

    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 01:24 PM
    Good job, Bo Peng
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 01:29 PM
    Not only is Mr. Peng insightful but he looks very handsome in his pic!
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 01:49 PM
    Very interesting presentation of the facts Mr. Peng. I keep wondering why the markets continue to whip-saw back and forth irrationally and with a complete lack of regard for logic while we still haven't flushed out the "real" issue...the CDS obligations and the calls thereof/thereon at some point in the near future; your article has helped me put some of this into proper perspective.Sure seems like a lot of cabbage to haave to cough up (for anyone/entity); So what are we looking at on October 22nd? Chance to fathom?
    Love the pic also... heeeeyah!
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 02:16 PM
    Haha, very insightful, Keith.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 02:25 PM
    So what happens when the Gov't comes to the rescue of the banks which might have to payout on 21 Oct? Mr. Paulson will recapitalize the banks (to keep them from imploding), but that new capital will go immediately to pay off the CDS "winners." And there the gov't (and taxpayers) will be holding the bag of loser banks which would be fairly anemic due to the payouts. I would hope the winners will gladly lend to the losers some more cash, but for a high interest rates. I hope the players don't see the opporunity for "risk mitigation by giving it to the government." Then there could be rush by the players to put the whole exposure on the government which will kick the can down the road to a worse day of reckoning.
    Also, PrudentMan, a term more appropriate for the power brokers would be cronyistic. Capitilistic=free market,
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 05:11 PM
    Appears that cash and collateral may have been posted in the normal course of business prior to the 10/21/08 settlement date.
    online.wsj.com/article...

    "The actual cash payments that sellers have to make in the coming days will be significantly lower, because many firms had already posted cash or collateral to their counterparties on the contracts prior to last week's auction. In addition, most banks and financial institutions had both bought and sold swaps on Lehman's debt, so some of their profits and losses would offset each other."

    I do agree with you that the total amount will be well over the $6B cited by DTCC. However, note this article:
    seekingalpha.com/artic...
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 13 09:55 PM
    Thanks for your generous comments, TimButler.

    My original title was "10/21: The Bottom". Maybe the editor(s) thought it was too provocative? ;>

    Zulu, I think it's sure the world will wake up on 10/22 with fewer hedge funds. But the one thing nobody seems to know is whether some failure could trigger a chain reaction through some derivatives-based amplifier link that nobody has thought of. It's the classical unknown unknown. I just hope somebody with access to more info and in position of power has given this some serious thoughts...

    amarksp, no CDS seller ever has the expected loss fully collateralized. It would kill any economic incentive to sell it, or otherwise the premium would be so high nobody would buy them. Furthermore, the loss on Lehman CDS turned out to be much higher than "expected".
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 14 02:13 AM
    Thanks Bo Peng for your article. It helped round out my picture and makes perfect sense. Although there will always be the devil in details, lets hope we can clean up this mess - I do hope your right about Bond Holders will be made whole - I have a dear friend 82 age who counts her bond income to pay for her nursing home & medical expenses.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 14 10:28 AM
    ddavid, if your friend has Lehman bonds, I'm afraid it's not good news. I don't want to cause any misconception or false hope. Those who will be made whole are those who hold the bonds AND bought the CDS protection. If you just have the bonds, you can only get around 10 cents on the dollar back now. I don't know what to say...I just hope Lehman bonds are a small part of her holdings...
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 14 03:09 PM
    "Now you know what the government bailout of AIG is for - the initial $85B and then the additional $37.8B (suspiciously precise isn't it?)."

    I would expect that it is standard procedure at AIG to have reinsured a substantial portion of its CDS exposure, of course that just muddies the waters more. In that event AIG may pay out substantial sums but recover similarly substantial sums from reinsurers on a different time schedule.

    A wise man once told me that a coconut couldn't fall on a car in Tahiti without the reinsurance market feeling the impact.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 14 08:01 PM
    In my post above, I noted one error. In paragraph 6, first line, strike "banks" and insert "governments"... instead. So, as corrected, that paragraph, should read as:

    "While European, Asian and American governments have stepped up to be commited to their respective large banks, if the CDS exposure is concentrated, the scale of the CDS settlement payout's impact on a bank's capital base could be mind numbing."

    Tim Butler
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 14 08:09 PM
    Kinabalu, if AIG had treated CDS as insurance, then you'd be right, they may have insured part of it. But as it was (and still is), it's not insurance. It's well known that they're by far the biggest net CDS seller.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 16 05:28 AM
    "The payment calculations so far performed by the DTCC Trade Information Warehouse relating to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy indicate that the net funds transfers from net sellers of protection to net buyers of protection are expected to be in the $6 billion range (in U.S. dollar equivalents)."

    source: www.dtcc.com/news/pres...

    This is hugely overblown.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 17 01:39 AM
    Bo Peng

    On September 23 the New York Insurance Department issued new guidelines that, for the first time, establish that some credit swaps are insurance and therefore subject to state regulation.

    So called ‘naked swaps’ are not insurance and cannot be regulated by the State. The State urged the US Government to cover the gap. SEC Chairman Cox recently proposed to Congress that it enact legislation giving the SEC authority to initiate such regulation.

    While AIG had many regulatory reasons to avoid calling CDS insurance, I believe they still could have handled their risk management in a manner that would have provided protection for these exposures. I have discovered that the basic re-insurance contract contains a specific exclusion for this type of risk but separate re-insurance markets are available to obtain coverage. I have no idea whether or not AIG made use of these markets. The fact that they have been silent on this matter would lead one to believe thay had no additional protection.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 17 07:05 PM
    A suggestion... since taxpayers are the ones who are on the hook for AIG's incalcuable incompetence, these CDS policies should not be paid off to hedge funds unless they can prove that they were long Lehman and using the CDS as an actual hedge when they were purchased. The taxpayer should not be liable to hedge funds that shorted Lehman and purchased CDS policies. As Cramer suggests, it's like buying insurance and then torching the house. That's criminal behavior and this is not that different. If AIG were not now owned by taxpayers I'd say let AIG go under having to payoff these policies, but hedge funds should not be allowed to pick the taxpayer's pocket. Reply |Report abuse
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 18 01:25 PM
    Very little, next to nothing, in the news about Oct 21. Why is this? Anyone buying SKF Monday?
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 12:35 PM
    The DTCC knows how much the money flows will be on Oct 21, and I assume they know the names attached to these flows. It's surprising this list hasn't been leaked out yet.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 04:06 PM
    spragus, I doubt DTCC knows the complete picture. Registration at DTCC is voluntary. Many buyers and sellers would rather remain anonymous.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 06:43 PM
    Mr. Bo Peng,

    Someone commented on another thread entitled 600 Trillion .....
    that the governments involved should just cancel or bust the CDS trades retroactively. What is your thought on that and why or why won't that work.

    Governments have done worst in the historical past for the "social good" involving slavery, relocation of native population and land seizure without proper compensation, why not do that now? There are only a relatively few small groups involved in a rather big windfall.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 07:16 PM
    tekram, I don't think the government has the right to cancel private contracts unless there're "greater" causes such as national security.

    Now we're talking philosophy: are we ready for totalitarianism? Paulson's bank rescue may have come close to it. But which way would you rather go, further or get back?
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 07:30 PM
    Thank you. I know we are talking about free market philosophy, but one could argue about the point that "I don't think the government has the right to cancel private contracts". For example, if the underlying instrument is illegal, such as the trading of human beings in slavery or the trafficking of illegal goods, such as cocaine etc, it is clear that contracts involving such goods are illegal and cancellable by authorities. US laws also allow the use of the RICO acts in a conspiracy and racketeering to defraud.

    I would still be interested in knowing what would be the consequences of cancelling the CDS contracts retroactively.

    Thanks again, good piece.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 08:26 PM
    Yes, tekram, government (the court, rather) can forfeit private contracts but in the case of CDS, since the contracted asset is legal, prosecution would have prove intend to defraud. That's next to impossible to do on CDS since

    1. It's based on market price.
    2. Its payout depends on projection of future, low-probability events.

    The impact would be incalculable. Banks signed on to Basel II depend on CDS to maintain their capital adequacy (Basel II is total crap but that's a different story). If all CDSs are canceled, you're talking about all European banks and most of US big banks going insolvent overnight.

    In addition, there ARE legitimate use of CDS as a hedging tool. Let's say company A takes delivery on your products/service but has a deferred payment agreement of some sort. Until you get paid, you're exposed to its credit risk. You could buy CDS on it to hedge the risk. It won't be exact or perfect, but it does offer protection. When you get paid, you unwind the trade and move on.

    Canceling CDS is not even close to the realm of reason. But there're much better alternatives. I have a proposal for one.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 19 11:44 PM

    . The corrupt have violated many laws and believe with out a thought they and have the money to pay off any who try to Enforce the law. Solution Enforce the Laws.
    The Criminal so above the law so bold they went on TV and spilled the beans.
    Quotes "MANY ARE TO BLAME"
    Law Dictionary; A conspiracy exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result,
    Fed lowers Interest to prop Fannie and Freddie 2001 to mid 2003 the Federal Reserve lowered its interest rates 13 times, from 6.25 to 1.00% overnight rate averaged 0.68% June 2004, the Federal Reserve System target interest rate continued to do so 17 straight times
    In March 2006, the Federal Reserve ceased to make public M3, arguably the most reliable means of measuring the money supply declared that the costs of collecting this data outweighed the benefits
    Here's the kicker
    The Fed needed to increase rates not lower them
    Quote". overnight overdrafts (more than three occurrences in any 12-month period), the overnight overdraft rate increases by one percentage point for each additional occurrence."
    So Conspiracy Proven[ CEOs, Fed, Congress]
    Now Every one on Earth Heard congress say the bail out is just bribery; Encyclopedia any item of value to influence the actions of an official in discharge of a public or legal duty.
    Bribery Proven
    Political corruption is the use of governmental powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. So America The Violations or so many that the Criminals truly believe they are above the law, Hell Above God Lie under oath as one would say Good Morning
    . THE SOLUTION THAT WILL FIX EVERYTHING , AND KEEP corruption like this FROM COMING BACK
    AMERICAS MUST DEMAND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
    America must Demand recovery for UNJUST ENRICHMENT
    Knowledge is immaterial under the law of unjust enrichment
    Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:23:00 -0500
    Re: Unjustly enriched executive
    "Former HealthSouth Corp. chief executive officer Richard Scrushy has been
    ordered by a judge to repay his former company more than $47.8 million in
    bonuses, according to published reports. ... Judge Allwin E. Horn III of
    Jefferson County Circuit Court in Birmingham, who made the ruling as part of
    a summary judgment in a shareholder lawsuit, determined that Scrushy is not
    entitled to the payments whether or not he participated in the fraud or knew
    about the scheme."


    "While the company initially reported profits during the period, Horn wrote,
    HealthSouth really lost money, making Scrushy and other executives
    ineligible for any bonuses."


    'Knowledge is immaterial under the law of unjust enrichment,' the judge
    reportedly wrote. 'Scrushy was unjustly enriched by these payments to the
    detriment of HealthSouth. And to allow Scrushy to retain the benefit of
    these payments would be unconscionable.' " Proven by Fact

    Corruption spent $500,000.00 on a party because they think Americans are stupid. Breaking the laws, means nothing to one that have on Honor for there position or even the oath they have taken. The Why and How. Why easy GREED. How The one person that had Honor And Respect for the Position he held retired. YES MR. Greenspan. No B.S. That is Fact. Look what the Fed has done. Lower rates more, at large amount, with out notice, like never in the history of America. WHY WHY To prop up number on Freddy ,Fannie and many more needing Bail out. A False perception. Why is it hitting the fan now. America the fed rate is at 1% and they are going to move it down to 0% it can go no lower. The perception of bad mortgages is all B.S. Think 200 CEO in just one firm making $100s of millions. Give each foreclose $500,000.00 and it comes to only $400B The Numbers are not even reasonable. Americans Now the Good News News so good it is time for us to have a party. American must demand . Enforcement of the Laws
    .Recovery of money but more than money this will stop the leaks/corruption in it tracks.
    Over 1000 CEO have been unjustly enriched. CEO must repay over
    $300B in bonuses.
    Unjust Enrichment by laws recover from years back America the amount of info, Facts, would put

    Reply
  •  
    Oct 20 12:27 AM
    where/what makes you think AIG will have a really huge exposure here?
    They had 29 deals in their corporate arb cds book with 54B in net notional and an average 19% attachment. They aren't all going to be LEH either.

    As to the multisector CDO's, given AIG claims to having written against 'super senior', would they even be on the hook? Would LEH be that large a part to make a technical default on the entire CDO? And if so, AIG could presumably sell or keep those tranches as they are worth > 0

    That leaves the regulatory capital swaps to worry about but they too would be like the multisector cdos, right?
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 20 02:13 AM
    Marley, where did you get those numbers about AIG? I'd like to see for myself. I based my guess purely on what I read about how AIG is the biggest net CDS seller, plus the timing of AIG bailout vs Lehman bankruptcy -- within days.

    I agree with you that the settlement will probably not affect the senior and super-senior tranches of most CDOs. Some CDXs will be affected, but not nearly as much as single-name CDS. If AIG didn't sell much single-name CDS on Lehman and mostly sold CDS on super-senior tranche CDOs, then good for them. I'm just saying it's unlikely judging from known facts so far -- why did they need bailout then?

    But even if they do have a huge exposure, the government would have no choice but to pop them up, which is my point.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 21 11:39 AM
    with all due respect then I think you should retract your story. This kind of speculative commentary/reporting has been fuel on the fire of many of the financial stocks (not just aig or leh).

    Every quarter AIG publishes a credit presentation of order 75 pages long with details on their CDS book as well as their investment portfolio. To the best of my knowledge (which include review of the 10-Q and 10-K) this is the complete book.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 21 12:58 PM
    BO Pengu

    I really would like you and your editor to explain how it is possible that AIG would only have a 6.2 Million exposure to Lehman CDS after all the obvisouly misleading information that you and your fellow so-called experts have been writing on this subject, subject about which you clearly have no clue unless you are deliberately misleading the public.

    You are clear the shame of your industry and the least you could do is retract your story and publish official apologies
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 21 02:40 PM
    Marley & User 283188, this article is not about AIG, or any other particular stock for that matter. My original title was "10/21: The Bottom" which is what the article says, if you care to read it in its entirety. If AIG only has $6.2M exposure as you claim, we'll find out tomorrow and the stock would reflect it.

    No retraction necessary.
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 22 12:21 AM
    Bo Peng, your commentary is fascinating and insightful. I'm gonna keep your articles on my watch list.
    Other than the ISDA's statement on a successful settlement, was there any other disclosure on whether any parties came up short or who walked away with a multi-billion dollar food stamp?
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 22 01:16 AM
    Wow.. can't you own up to it. Quotes below. You've admitted earlier that you
    had NO IDEA what AIG's exposures were - even though this information was public and accessible every quarter - , yet you speak in a tone of near certainty
    that golly gee we better watch out folks cause they won't have the dough to
    settle, after all they are the BIGGEST writer of CDS, that drive thru discount window better stay open til midnight!

    You've greatly mischaracterized AIG's exposure and frankly, mischaracterized
    this whole settlement. If that isnt throwing gasoline on a fire, I don't know what
    is. You are not the only one doing this, it is endemic to the financial press (written/online/tv) whereby they mischaracterize, misrepresent, mistate facts and figures while sounding sophisticated enough that most others take it for gospel.


    "Now you know what the government bailout of AIG is for - the initial $85B and then the additional $37.8B (suspiciously precise isn't it?). Don't be surprised if the number goes up again before 10/21. Will tax-payers get the money back after 10/21? Fat chance. Is the money really for saving AIG, or making sure others who bought CDS on Lehman will get their windfall? Take your pick."

    "If there are high-profile bankruptcies on 10/21 (banks, AIG), then markets will be spooked and all eyes would then turn to WaMu; otherwise it'd likely be a non-event in comparison."

    "The Fed's discount window will stay open late on 10/21. For banks (or AIG) who cannot post enough collateral, Paulson will be ready to buy stocks in a heartbeat. If the initial $250 billion runs out that day, they can let foreign sovereign funds buy preferred stocks. It's a wonderful world."
    Reply
  •  
    Oct 22 11:29 AM
    Wow.. can't you own up to it. Quotes below. You've admitted earlier that you
    had NO IDEA what AIG's exposures were - even though this information was public and accessible every quarter - , yet you speak in a tone of near certainty
    that golly gee we better watch out folks cause they won't have the dough to
    settle, after all they are the BIGGEST writer of CDS, that drive thru discount window better stay open til midnight!

    You've greatly mischaracterized AIG's exposure and frankly, mischaracterized
    this whole settlement. If that isnt throwing gasoline on a fire, I don't know what
    is. You are not the only one doing this, it is endemic to the financial press (written/online/tv) whereby they mischaracterize, misrepresent, mistate facts and figures while sounding sophisticated enough that most others take it for gospel.


    "Now you know what the government bailout of AIG is for - the initial $85B and then the additional $37.8B (suspiciously precise isn't it?). Don't be surprised if the number goes up again before 10/21. Will tax-payers get the money back after 10/21? Fat chance. Is the money really for saving AIG, or making sure others who bought CDS on Lehman will get their windfall? Take your pick."

    "If there are high-profile bankruptcies on 10/21 (banks, AIG), then markets will be spooked and all eyes would then turn to WaMu; otherwise it'd likely be a non-event in comparison."

    "The Fed's discount window will stay open late on 10/21. For banks (or AIG) who cannot post enough collateral, Paulson will be ready to buy stocks in a heartbeat. If the initial $250 billion runs out that day, they can let foreign sovereign funds buy preferred stocks. It's a wonderful world."
    Reply
More Comments on LEHMQ.PK »
More by Bo Peng