Live data from Hacker News

The Looming Bank Collapse

theatlantic.com

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#21
post #13

It doesn’t matter if CLOs collapse. The capital requirements that banks operate under will ensure that they will withstand it.

From TFA

> But the losses from CLOs, combined with losses from other troubled assets like those commercial-mortgage-backed securities, will lead to serious deficiencies in capital.

You're making a pretty brave assertion given what we saw in 2008. I now assume that the ratings are all skewed to be too optimistic, publicly acknowledged exposure is skewed to underreport, and our ability to see the actual damage that would be caused by a system-wide collapse in CLOs isn't clear because we don't know what each opaque silo is doing to multiply or hedge those CLOs (and neither does any individual silo).

Also, capital reserve requirements dry up very quickly when a panic starts to set in. The Federal Reserve saved us earlier this year and in 2008+, but there comes a point when it won't be as successful and investors may start to see other markets as being comparatively lower risk, especially after the official US debt will likely jump 20-50% this year alone and we never unrolled the $4.5trillion in QE, only added another $4trillion - $10trillion onto that.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#22

From an outsider living a long way from USA, for many years now I haven't understood how the financial instruments of USA work. It constantly looks like the country is merely printing more money to stay afloat.

There is a lot of terminology, and the details are absurdly complicated, but the basic idea is simple:

* businesses make things and sell them

* businesses take loans as a way to have a base of money to operate with, because the costs associated to make things have to be paid before the revenue from selling them comes in, and sales may be cyclical, etc

* businesses pay interest on those loans. (Hopefully this interest rate is significantly less than their profit margin.)

* the issuers of the loans- usually banks- sell the rights to the interest payments of those loans. Why? When a bank makes a loan, it is exposed to the risk of the business failing- if it fails, the loan principal and interest payments are lost. banks don't want this kind of "all or nothing" risk (more below).

* people who buy those rights package those interest payment rights into legal structures that combine interest payment rights from a lot of businesses together

* parts of those melded interest payment legal structures are then sold, often sold back to banks, because now the risk, instead of being "all or nothing" is "diversified".

The same thing happens with mortgages- banks that issue mortgages sell the mortgages and then buy into structures that package the payment rights from many, many mortgages.

For every given institution/bank, the move to sell the specific asset and buy the diversified asset makes sense.

At a systemic level, when everyone is doing this, it becomes systemically risky.

What's happening now, because of the systemic risk, entities that hold these "diversified" assets are themselves selling them to the central bank, which is then absorbing the systemic risk. This article doesn't mention that bank holdings of cash are at all time highs.

In principle, this does not amount to "printing money to stay afloat"- though many will say in practice it does. In principle, it amounts to shifting systemic risk around.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#23
post #13

It doesn’t matter if CLOs collapse. The capital requirements that banks operate under will ensure that they will withstand it.

That's sarcasm right? The capital requirement has recently been dropped to zero.

Edit for source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#24
"There are more than $1 trillion worth of leveraged loans currently outstanding. The majority are held in CLOs."

To get some perspective, the FED recently added almost three trillion dollars of "not QE" to the balance sheet, mostly because of COVID-19.

They'll be bailed out.

"But this time, the bailout proposal will likely face stiffer opposition, from both parties"

Doubtful. Everything can be blamed on the virus this time.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#25
post #19

I've long read about the following still being a problem (post-2009): - CDOs (although a new generation of them have a new name/initialism) - Frank/Dodd was partially rolled back - The definition of bank size-classes was changed to reduce the regulatory burden over most regional banks that were previously more regulated - No significant adverse event happened after Standard & Poors was identified as having significan…

As a head's up a huge fraction of HN's readers read on mobile where code formatting like you used here makes posts unreadable.

Yes, I've heard, but there isn't a suitable replacement format that I've seen for a bulleted list.

The formatting doc[1] is very short and doesn't include a list.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#26

From an outsider living a long way from USA, for many years now I haven't understood how the financial instruments of USA work. It constantly looks like the country is merely printing more money to stay afloat.

Simple...imagine an accounts receivable that you can borrow against, so when you are low on cash you can borrow money on the basis you will be able to pay in the future with the account receivables.

Only the US account receivable is taxes paid by taxpayers. So what happens is when the rich are in trouble they turn to the government and what the government does is says ok we will borrow against future taxes and just give it to you and typically those being bailed out are banks who turn around and take the taxpayers money and lend it back to the taxpayers. In short the taxpayers get screwed twice once being indebted to the government for future taxes and then again when they have to borrow their own debt from banks.

So imagine I’m your government and say look Bank needs money so I am going to give the bank $100 and you the taxpayers will have to pay that back. Bank gets the money and turns around and lends you $90 while keeping $10 as a fee earned and for lending you the $90 you will need to pay the bank back $100. You see now you need to pay $100 in future taxes to the government and $100 to the bank, so you are really out about $200 less the $90 loan.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#27
post #3

It doesn't matter if the banks crash again if the Fed will just bail everybody out again and push stock market inflation even higher than it is now. It's clearly unsustainable, but the question is, how and why will the bubble burst? The author posits one option, of political intervention precluding another bailout. But the Federal Reserve is non-political precisely to shield it from attempted short-term political mac…

Think you nailed it. The thing is, in order for capital flight to be a risk there needs to be somewhere else of comparable size and upside opportunity to the US that doesn't rhyme with "China" and it sure as hell isn't Europe. So we're back to square one in which absolutely massive sums of money are chasing returns with nowhere else to put money than the same places it already is. It's madness on a global scale.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#28

From an outsider living a long way from USA, for many years now I haven't understood how the financial instruments of USA work. It constantly looks like the country is merely printing more money to stay afloat.

US native here. If I printed some $100USD bills, took them to the bank and tried to deposit them, they would have no value. The consensus is that you aren't allowed to print money. The United States Government prints money all the time. This money has value because there is a world-wide consensus that it has value. The simple fact is that there is and has been (for many decades) no safer place to park vast sums of mo…

> The United States Government prints money all the time. This money has value because there is a world-wide consensus that it has value.

No the Government borrows against future taxes (consider that an accounts receivable), the borrowed money doesn’t have value because of consensus it has value because it is backed by future tax revenue.

If the government did as you say and borrowed a trillion per taxpayer the system would breakdown but not because of some “consensus” but because the account receivable (future taxes) is insufficient to payback the borrowed money.

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#29
post #13

It doesn’t matter if CLOs collapse. The capital requirements that banks operate under will ensure that they will withstand it.

If that's not sarcasm, help me understand why... I'm not a finance guy. The argument made by the author was roughly something like this:

- Capital requirements against the CLO's assume AAA ratings

- In 2008, we learned that AAA CDO traunches were really AAA (despite not containing a single AAA-rated loan) only when assumptions about (non-)correlation of defaults remained true -- ie real estate markets are local so not everyone defaults at the same time

- The problem with the AAA CDO ratings was that in a time of crisis, all the "good times" defaulting correlation assumptions go out the window and everyone defaults together. Now the magic of blending a bunch of BBB's, BB's, and B's into an AAA no longer works.

So if now we're repeating the same story -- a big shock ('rona) makes a whole bunch of previously uncorrelated loans default together -- then the argument goes that the capital requirements which assumed AAA ratings are insufficient.

What part of that story is wrong or incomplete?

Re: The Looming Bank Collapse

#30
post #10

> The federal government stepped in to rescue the other big banks and forestall a panic. The intervention worked—though its success did not seem assured at the time—and the system righted itself. Of course, many Americans suffered as a result of the crash, losing homes, jobs, and wealth. An already troubling gap between America’s haves and have-nots grew wider still. Yet by March 2009, the economy was on the upswing,…

What criteria should someone use to judge 'righted itself'? No event can ever be completely undone, merely compensated for. Many of the people who lost homes should never have bought them leading up to '08 - they only were able to because of unrealistic (and sometimes predatory) underwriting standards and financing that NEVER would have worked out, and blew up shortly thereafter once the people bankrolling it figured…

Mortgages should have been heavily renegotiated, bailout given to the home owners to pay back the mortgage in a bottom-up bailout. Let's throw in existing homeowners as well, who had made proper payments in the mix, so they get some benefit from the situation.

Instead lots of money handed over to banks to fix their books and toxic assets handed over to the .gov. Lots of people losing their homes and jobs, no one in the financial sector really seeing any jail time or penalty for their malfeasance. Much of the financial sector actually made off quite well during/after the crisis.

We're seeing it again with big businesses getting COVID bailouts, meanwhile politicians are wringing their hands that unemployment insurance benefits are "too high" and "main street" needs to get back to work. Make sure "main street" is held accountable and/or penalized, but it seems there are a lot of golden parachutes and soft landings for big business and the finance industries.

Post reply on HN