Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I remember correctly one of them closed down his fund because he was stressed and tired of his clients always second guessing him through the whole thing. Then begin to second guess him again on his next decisions despite being right the first time and bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.
I believe he is investing in water now if the end of the film is correct. Let's hope he isn't right twice.
America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
141–150 of 152 posts
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: how many of them reverted to mean afterward [0], that is, thought they saw other things coming, bet on them and were wrong about as often as everyone else? John Paulson wasn't featured in the movie, but fit the bill. But I don't know about those in the book/film. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
If I remember correctly one of them closed down his fund because he was stressed and tired of his clients always second guessing him through the whole thing. Then begin to second guess him again on his next decisions despite being right the first time and bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.
A couple months later he made everyone who was suing him to get their money millions of dollars.
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#143I'd agree that the US housing and derivatives markets are in a much better position than in 2007-2008. Atleast people who are getting mortgages now have some form of documentation, and risk manages are being asked to do their jobs. The crisis now is that, and this is just my opinion, low rates are here to stay. with the amount of money in the system, people are being priced out of homes and as time goes on the amount…
I'm still confused by the CDS bit. Is there a good eli5 article on it? I've already checked the eli5 subreddit and couldn't find anything specifically on the mechanism that allowed shorting.
Christian Bale's character's hedge fund wanted to make a big bet that mortgage backed securities would fail.
So he shopped the banks for those that would take that bet.
The ones that agreed to take the bet, he paid them a negotiated monthly amount (basically rent) to keep the bet in effect. If he stopped paying rent, the bet was off.
The banks thought it would never happen and it was free money coming in. Since they thought the risk was 0% it was free money coming in.
... basically, the banks thought he was crazy, but would take his money to keep the bet going.
In the movie, Bale's fund gradually loses money paying "rent" on this bet / option / contract. Things get dicey when conditions that should result in the bet paying off get covered up by the banks and government, and the investors in his fund get pissed they aren't getting any return on their money as promised.
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC from reading the book a year or two ago, one of them's bosses were hounding him for the premiums he was paying on the insurance-like contracts he bought, which was something like $25m/year. When the crash happened they bought in ~$1b. Had there not been a crash he would have got nothing (the contracts would never have paid out) and that $25m/year would have been money down the drain.
Shorting is a risk. Shorting with big money is a big risk. In this case though, my impression is that certain people who actually looked at the data knew it would happen. Not like "I think it will happen", it was "it will happen sometime in this month of this year" kind of thing. Because they knew when those stupid ARMs would kick in with their adjustable rates on top of the obvious number of failed mortgages. The ri…
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still confused by the CDS bit. Is there a good eli5 article on it? I've already checked the eli5 subreddit and couldn't find anything specifically on the mechanism that allowed shorting.
As I understood it in the Big Short: Christian Bale's character's hedge fund wanted to make a big bet that mortgage backed securities would fail. So he shopped the banks for those that would take that bet. The ones that agreed to take the bet, he paid them a negotiated monthly amount (basically rent) to keep the bet in effect. If he stopped paying rent, the bet was off. The banks thought it would never happen and it…
It's like you are arguing that life insurance is a bet.
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#146Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much everyone is saying that interest rates are going up in the US and are going to go up soon. Alan Greenspan just came out today saying people are going to be surprised how quickly they go up.
I think everyone would like for them to go up, but I haven't seen any real reason why it might happen. The rich world has been stuck in very low interest rates for a long time. (Edit since I'm fixing a typo: Look at the treasury yield curve. Has it gotten steeper, which would indicate an expectation of rising rates? No. The 30 year rate has been falling the last few years.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-19/macquarie-s-...
Lots of pension funds have been destroyed (but the Fed doesn't care, and the ECB even less), and banks are not far behind. Soon the choice will be raise rates or face bank bankruptcies. My money's on that they'll raise rates and just let the many, many over-indebted companies refinance or go bankrupt.
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could you call it insurance when you have no interest in the original security? What are you insurance against?
You don't need to be a direct party in a contract to be affected by it. You can insure against possible negative outcomes of someone else's contracts. e.g.) Party A and Party B sign a contract that Party B will pay Party A $X by some date. Party A has seperately agreed to pay you $0.9X shortly afterward. You are a savvy businessperson and realize that Party A will not have $0.9X to pay you if the Party B fails to mak…
I can pay a bum on the street 10 dollars to sign his name on a contract like that (that he'd take over these payments in the case of bankruptcy). He would not pay up if it does happen. Apparently the situation is the same with these banks. Isn't this fraud ?
They're signing insurance contracts they know they might not be able to pay up. Why don't we demand that they put the money into a locked account like every landlord on the planet does with tenants ? If you don't have that guarantee on a locked account, not used for anything else, then why is that contract accepted as hedged risk ?
Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understood it in the Big Short: Christian Bale's character's hedge fund wanted to make a big bet that mortgage backed securities would fail. So he shopped the banks for those that would take that bet. The ones that agreed to take the bet, he paid them a negotiated monthly amount (basically rent) to keep the bet in effect. If he stopped paying rent, the bet was off. The banks thought it would never happen and it…
It wasn't a bet - it was insurance, and his payment was the premium to underwrite that insurance. Of course the banks who wrote him the CDS failed to price the risk appropriately... It's like you are arguing that life insurance is a bet.
What happens when interest rates go up, even a little ? It seems to me obvious consequences would be:
1) monthly payments go up. Either directly (variable interest) or when you refinance (companies have running debt. Almost always taking out new loan when old one comes due). In that case, interest rates go up slower than the benchmark rate, but they still go up.
2) creditworthiness of all debtors goes down (same as with individuals: you are "approved" for a monthly payment, e.g. 100 dollars/month. At 0% interest that covers 12000 dollars for a 10-year loan. At 1% that covers 11400, or about 5% less. Next time you ask for a loan you're not going to be able to loan 12000, so you can't just roll over the debt. So your ability to get new loans is going to be worse)
Also, can someone explain to me why this doesn't result in moral hazard for management of large companies ? If you can loan at, say, 0.25% why wouldn't you just loan the next 60 year's profits now (investment time horizon "until the investors are expected to be dead"), pay it out to investors, and leave, content that you have done far better than you could have done by managing the firm well ?