COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“It may be difficult for European governments to avoid making bank trading partners whole, especially American institutions, since the United States government paid full value to foreign banks that dealt with A.I.G. and also opened Federal Reserve programs to troubled foreign banks. Dexia, for example, leaned heavily on emergency lending programs created by the Fed during the depths of the financial crisis. At its peak borrowing near the end of 2008, Dexia received $58.5 billion from the Fed.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: It may be hard to follow. The simple truth is that the mega banks sold world governments and major banks around the world on the new financial system” just as they sold investors around the world on the “new economy” in the dot com bubble.

The actual amount of credit derivatives and exotic loan products around the world may never be known because they were all non–transparent “private” transactions. But they are having a very public effect. And Goldman, Morgan and others are continuing with their full court press to be paid 100 cents on the dollar for every bit of it. Since the original “products” were defective it hardly seems fair that those who created this mess should be made whole while the rest of the world, its pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and even operating funds go down the drain.

Even today, with all we know about the misbehavior of the Banks, their intentional deception of investors, customers, shareholders, borrowers, and government, we continue to allow Bank money to pollute our politics as they continue to lobby successfully for watering down protections in the Dodd-Frank bill. (See NY Times Editorial 10-23-11).

Without the Occupyers and similar protests, the plight of the world’s citizens and governments would largely go unnoticed or continue to be misunderstood. The answer to the question, no matter how it is phrased, is that the Bank oligopoly is still calling the shots. We know that because governments on local, state, and national levels are suffering from losses they had nothing to do with.

The myth that this crisis relates to over spending on pensions and other such “explanations” ignores the more basic truth that if the revenue was there, these governments would not be in such distress. And that if the Banks were forced to accept the losses that are , after all, THEIR LOSSES, then the situation wouldn’t be nearly as dire as it is. The reality is that the situation could hardly be worse and it continues to worsen because government and the people have let Banks become their governing body. That situation must change before any meaningful relief can be found.

Bank’s Collapse in Europe Points to Global Risks

By and

As Europe’s debt crisis has deepened, a recurring question is how much risk it poses to the United States economy, and especially American banks.

While American financial institutions have sought to limit any damage by reducing their loans and thus lowering their direct exposure to Europe’s problems, the recent rescue of the Belgian-French bank Dexia shows that there are indirect exposures that are less known and understood — and potentially worrisome.

Dexia’s problems are not entirely caused by Europe’s debt crisis, but some issues in its case are a matter of broader debate. Among them are how much of a bailout banks should get, and the size of the losses they should take on loans that governments cannot repay.

Among Dexia’s biggest trading partners are several large United States institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. To limit damage from Dexia’s collapse, the bailout fashioned by the French and Belgian governments may make these banks and other creditors whole — that is, paid in full for potentially tens of billions of euros they are owed. This would enable Dexia’s creditors and trading partners to avoid losses they might otherwise suffer without the taxpayer rescue.

Whether this sets a precedent if Europe needs to bail out other banks will be closely watched. The debate centers on how much of a burden taxpayers should bear to support banks that made ill-advised loans or trades.

Many on Wall Street and in government argue that rescues are essential, to avoid the risk of destabilizing the financial system — with one bank’s failure to pay its obligations leading to problems at other banks. But others counter that the rescue of Dexia is reminiscent of the United States’ decision to fully protect big banks that were the trading partners of the American International Group when it collapsed, a decision that was sharply questioned and examined by Congress.

Critics warn of a replay of the financial crisis in autumn 2008, when governments used taxpayer money to shore up troubled companies, then allowed them to transfer those funds to their trading partners to protect those institutions from losses. In using public money to rescue private institutions, these critics say, policy makers effectively rewarded banks that traded with companies that were in trouble, rather than penalizing them, and that encouraged risky behavior.

“The question is did the A.I.G. experience and the bailouts generally contribute to the current situation?” asked Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Would the banks, he continued, “have had a different view in dealing with Greece — or with Dexia for that matter — if those who had dealt with A.I.G. hadn’t been made whole?”

Given the global and interconnected nature of the financial system, institutions around the world have other types of indirect risk to European debt problems. But the scope of these ties is not fully known, because the exposure is hidden by complex transactions that do not have to be reported in detail.

Dexia, which was bailed out by France and Belgium once before, in 2008, is just a small piece of the broader European debt and banking turmoil. But its collapse comes at a critical point, as European officials are meeting this weekend to work out how taxpayer money should be used to resolve the Continent’s debt crisis.

The most acrimonious debate has been over the amount of losses banks should suffer for lending hundreds of billions of euros to countries that may not be able to fully repay. In the case of Greece, big lenders in Europe have tentatively agreed to swallow modest losses on what they are owed, but are resisting proposals that would force them to take a much bigger hit. Even if they accept losses, they may then seek tens or hundreds of billions in capital infusions from their governments.

As the Dexia bailout deal closed last week and was approved by the French Parliament, officials overseeing the restructuring say that the bank will meet all of its obligations in full. Alexandre Joly, the head of strategy, portfolios and market activities at Dexia, said in an interview that the idea of forcing Dexia’s trading partners to accept a discount on what they are owed “is a monstrous idea.” He added, “It is not compatible with rules governing the euro zone, and it has never, ever been considered to our knowledge by any government in charge of the supervision of the banks.”

While several government officials in France and Belgium agree that they expect to allow Dexia to use its rescue money to pay its trading partners in full, others said a final decision had not been made. Representatives for Dexia’s trading partners, like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, said they were not concerned about exposure to Dexia.

Dexia has suffered in several lines of business, including investments in sovereign debt from countries like Greece. But the biggest drain on its cash stemmed from a series of complex, wrong-way bets it made on interest rates related to its municipal lending business. A significant part of Dexia’s business is lending money to these localities at a fixed interest rate for relatively long periods, say 10 years. But, because the interest rate that the bank itself pays to finance its operations fluctuates, that exposes it to potential risk. If its cost of borrowing exceeds the interest it charges on loans outstanding, it loses money.

To protect itself, Dexia entered into transactions with other banks. But in doing so, it made a major miscalculation and protected itself only if interest rates rose. Instead, interest rates fell, and according to Dexia’s trade agreements, Dexia had to post billions of euros in collateral to institutions on the opposite side of its trades, like Commerzbank of Germany, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

Dexia is also suffering losses on about 11 billion euros ($15.3 billion) in credit insurance it has written on mortgage-related securities, the same instruments that felled A.I.G., echoing that insurer’s troubles. In this business, too, Dexia’s problems have been worsened by aggressive demands by some trading partners for additional collateral. According to a person briefed on the transactions, Goldman Sachs, one of Dexia’s biggest trading partners, has asked for collateral equal to nearly twice the decline in market value of its deals. As was the case with A.I.G., Dexia must provide the collateral when the prices of the underlying securities fall, even if they have not defaulted.

In all, Dexia has had to post 43 billion euros to its trading partners to offset potential losses, up from 26 billion at the end of April and 15 billion at the end of 2008. The bank’s need for cash to meet these demands drained its coffers, and contributed to its need for a government bailout. The Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments provided a guarantee of up to 90 billion euros to Dexia, and Belgium purchased part of it outright.

Dexia declined to specify how much money had already gone to each trading partner. A Commerzbank spokesman declined to comment. Jeanmarie McFadden, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, said that the bank’s exposure to Dexia was immaterial and that Morgan Stanley had received adequate collateral to cover it. Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman, said “we have no reason to believe that Dexia will not continue to meet its contractual obligations after it is restructured.”

As for the aggressive collateral calls by Goldman, Mr. van Praag said: “Our dealings with Dexia have been perfectly normal. In an environment of widening credit spreads and increased volatility, collateral calls are to be expected.” The suggestion that Goldman has been more aggressive than Dexia’s other trading partners is “quite odd,” he said, adding: “If collateral is owed, we ask for it.” Mr. Joly of Dexia said the bank did not have “significant issues” with Goldman over collateral owed on some contracts.

Economists and financial players are closely watching how European officials handle Dexia’s financial contracts, which span the globe, to see what that might mean for other European banks that might need government support. As trading partners demand more cash, those demands could consume more of the money put up by the Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments.

“We know what the guarantees are that the government put down, but you don’t know how much the taxpayer will end up paying,” said Paul De Grauwe, a professor of economics at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. “I’m pretty sure there are other banks in Europe that have done similar things and may be caught in the crisis that is now brewing. I don’t think this is an isolated incident.”

It may be difficult for European governments to avoid making bank trading partners whole, especially American institutions, since the United States government paid full value to foreign banks that dealt with A.I.G. and also opened Federal Reserve programs to troubled foreign banks. Dexia, for example, leaned heavily on emergency lending programs created by the Fed during the depths of the financial crisis. At its peak borrowing near the end of 2008, Dexia received $58.5 billion from the Fed.

Some financial players may also argue that since France and Belgium took equity stakes in Dexia in 2008 — as part of the government bailout then — there was an implicit guarantee of the company’s obligations, similar to that of the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the United States.

Walker F. Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and a former official at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said governments were setting a troubling precedent when they bailed out a company and paid its trading partners in full, as occurred with A.I.G. and as might occur with Dexia.

“In the short run, it would help if the authorities would say they refuse to provide publicly funded money for the payoffs of derivatives,” he said. “This is like using public funds to support your local casino. It is difficult to see how this is good for society in the long run.”

6 Responses

  1. Check out this clip with Dylan Ratigan and Delaware AG Beau Biden. It’s very interesting…except the part where he says the “investor” owns the mortgage—(he says Fannie and Freddie are the investors), SO frustrating!!! But—he was making the point of how can you “settle” without investigating the foundation—ie., “origination claims and securitization claims”…and MERS. He says the banks have lost track of who owns what in America…that only 1 in 5 mortgages are actually “owned” by a bank…and the part where they start talking about Fannie and Freddie…also very interesting!

  2. Ex-Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker: Government Should Stop Financing Mortgages

    Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is advocating for regulatory control over the money-market mutual fund industry and believes the government should stop financing mortgages.

    Volcker said in a recent speech that money market funds have exacerbated stress in the financial markets because they pulled back on short-term lending to European banks.

    If money-market funds are to continue providing significant funding to regulated banks, they should be subject to capital requirements, deposit insurance protection and stronger oversight of their investments, Volcker said.

    “The time has clearly come to harness money market funds in a manner that recognizes both their structural importance in diverting funds from regulated banks and their destabilizing potential,” Volcker said in a speech last month that was highlighted by The New York Times on Saturday.

    The speech, titled “Three Years Later: Unfinished Business In Financial Reform,” also criticized the government’s role in the U.S. mortgage market through government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Today, he noted, the U.S. residential mortgage market is almost entirely dependent on financial support from taxpayers. The federal government placed those entities into conservatorship in 2008 and has funded hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of losses on their mortgage portfolios.

    “It is important that planning proceed now on the assumption that Government Sponsored Enterprises will no longer be a part of the structure of the market,” Volcker said.

    In his interview with the Times, Volcker acknowledged that it will take time to remove government support from the mortgage market, which is still struggling to repair itself, but said policymakers now have “an opportunity to get rid of institutions that shouldn’t exist.”

    Volcker’s opinions are highly regarded among some economists and regulators and he was a top adviser to President Barack Obama on financial regulatory reform.

    But a measure he championed to restrict banks’ ability to bet with their own capital, now known as the Volcker rule, has become a target for financial industry lobbyists seeking to blunt its impact on Wall Street profits.

    (of course it has—that’s why we need to )!!!

    (Reporting by Lauren Tara LaCapra in New York, editing by Maureen Bavdek)

  3. derivatives…the root of all evil…

  4. neidermeyer, since the “profits” from these derivatives are totally privatized, and the relevant governments appear to be OF and FOR the corporations while actually screwing over the citizen masses, perhaps better to print the new FBN’s in fascist BROWN.

  5. On a serious note , Dexia passed the latest “bank stress test” with flying colors recently, showing how those tests are an absolute joke meant only to quiet the masses that the “elites” feel are beneath them , I believe Dexia was ranked third strongest in the EU ,, just before it ‘sploded … the entire EU banking system can therefore be assumed to be “on the edge” of a crash… not just the PIIGS.

  6. Pay the banks off 100% on their exotic and toxic derivatives ,, just pay them in a “new” dollar ,, print it in communist RED from the newly created “First Bank of Neidermeyer” and inscribe it with “payable by the Federal Reserve… in 2111” …

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: