• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Financial Crisis and Man in the Street needs know

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Btw can you explain the difference between "principal protected" and "principal guaranteed" in simple succinct layman terms?
Cheers
Principal Protected - the term is usually associated with hedge funds where a small % of your investment is used to buy "insurance" (places it in a safe product) while he plays high risk games with the bigger % of your investment. If the high risk plays fails, then on maturity, the insurance will accumulate and at the time of maturity cover the original amt invested.

Principal Guaranteed - is usually a straight forward guarantee of your principle. That guarantee is backed by the bank balance sheet or an external entity like a Fed or an insurance agency.

Principal Protected Notes are usually gimmicks. The returns are usually nil or sucked up by high fees. The return formula is similar to alchemy.
 
Last edited:

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hey thanks a bunch, especially with regards PPNs:smile:

Principal Protected - the term is usually associated with hedge funds where a small % of your investment is used to buy "insurance" (places it in a safe product) while he plays high risk games with the bigger % of your investment. If the high risk plays fails, then on maturity, the insurance will accumulate and at the time of maturity cover the original amt invested.

Principal Guaranteed - is usually a straight forward guarantee of your principle. That guarantee is backed by the bank balance sheet or an external entity like a Fed or an insurance agency.

Principal Protected Notes are usually gimmicks. The returns are usually nil or sucked up by high fees. The return formula is similar to alchemy.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Scroobal and all,

This is a really great article on the what, why and how viz the Financial Crisis.


Wall Street Lays Another Egg. Not so long ago, the dollar stood for a sum of gold, ... by Niall Ferguson December 2008. Illustration by Tim Bower ...www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/12/banks200812 - Similar pages

www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/12/banks200812

Thanks, Great article. Niall Ferguson is a rare breed, a financial historian and his books are good.

1 issues however.
He should not use 1987 drop which was sudden as a comparison. That was a market correction which was primarily technical. In this case, we are talking about financial structures losing its pillars.
 

ahbengsong

Alfrescian
Loyal
L. Singapore is particularly hit as it is a financial centre and its depends on the world. OZ and Malaysia are 2 there might be hum along.
Once again, its a collapse of a model and this has never happenned before in this manner or scale. Even the great depression was not a collapse of a model.

As posted before... countries with natural resources to sustain itself minimally are the ones who can pull through this... good luck to sinkees... :biggrin:
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Glad you enjoyed his essay.:smile:

Yes I see your pov, I had to read Niall's essay pretty slowly as I lack the finance and math background.:o What particularly caught my eye was his reference to the rise of quantitative finance, Long Term Capital Management Saga and "The China Syndrome".

Thanks, Great article. Niall Ferguson is a rare breed, a financial historian and his books are good.

1 issues however.
He should not use 1987 drop which was sudden as a comparison. That was a market correction which was primarily technical. In this case, we are talking about financial structures losing its pillars.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Glad you enjoyed his essay.:smile:

Yes I see your pov, I had to read Niall's essay pretty slowly as I lack the finance and math background.:o What particularly caught my eye was his reference to the rise of quantitative finance, Long Term Capital Management Saga and "The China Syndrome".

Quantitative finance seems to be the issue. Not many understand what it means including the guys who create models to assess and rate risks. LTCM was screwed by 2 nobel laureates using the black scholes model. AIG got screwed by a Yale Professor who created a risk model for credit default swaps. Warren Buffet once suggested that before a company plays around with derivatives, the board of directors should acknowledge its use and what it can lead to. None took it up.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
As posted before... countries with natural resources to sustain itself minimally are the ones who can pull through this... good luck to sinkees... :biggrin:

It will be interesting to see and compare malaysia and singapore over the next 12 to 18 months.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
One thing Niall appeared to leave out is the role of the Credit Rating Agencies. These chaps seem to have alot to answer for.

Quantitative finance seems to be the issue. Not many understand what it means including the guys who create models to assess and rate risks..

I wonder whether Ho Ching and LKY had been bedazzled by this toxic phenomenon?

Warren Buffet once suggested that before a company plays around with derivatives, the board of directors should acknowledge its use and what it can lead to. None took it up.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wages of our sins
Breakdown ofresponsibility onall fronts led to thebailout of banks


THOMAS L FRIEDMAN



.
I SPENT Sunday afternoon brooding over a great piece of Times reporting by Eric Dash and Julie Creswell about Citigroup. Maybe brooding isn’t the right word. The front-page article, entitled “Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk,” actually left me totally disgusted.
.
Why? Because in searing detail it exposed — using Citigroup as Exhibit A — how some of our country’s best-paid bankers were overrated dopes who had no idea what they were selling; or greedy cynics who did know and turned a blind eye.
.
But it wasn’t only the bankers. This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics.
.
So many people were in on it:
.
• People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years;
.
• People who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so;
.
• People who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so;
.
• People who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made a fortune doing so; and
.
• People who had no _business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so.
.
.
Citigroup was involved in, and made money from, almost every link in that chain. And the bank’s executives, including, sadly, the former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, were clueless about the reckless financial instruments they were creating, or were so ensnared by the cronyism between the bank’s risk managers and risk takers (and so bought off by their bonuses) that they had no interest in stopping it.
.
These are the people whom taxpayers bailed out on Monday to the tune of what could be more than US$300 billion ($454 billion).
.
We probably had no choice. Just letting Citigroup melt down could have been catastrophic. But when the government throws together a bailout that could end up being hundreds of billions of dollars in 48 hours, you can bet there will be unintended consequences — many, many, many.
.
Also check out Michael Lewis’ superb essay, “The End of Wall Street’s Boom”, on Portfolio.com.
.
Mr Lewis, who first chronicled Wall Street’s excesses in Liar’s Poker, profiles some of the decent people on Wall Street who tried to expose the credit binge — including a little-known banking analyst Meredith Whitney, who declared over a year ago, that “Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust”.
.
“This woman wasn’t saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt,” Mr Lewis added. “She was saying they were stupid. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of borrowed money, and imagine what they’d fetch in a fire sale ...
.
For better than a year now, Ms Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down, or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You’re wrong. You’re still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business.”
.
Mr Lewis also tracked down Steve Eisman, the hedge fund investor who early-on saw through the subprime mortgages and shorted the companies engaged in them, like Long Beach Financial, owned by Washington Mutual.
.
“Long Beach Financial,” wrote Mr Lewis, “was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialised in asking homeowners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible.
.
In Bakersfield, California., a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of US$14,000 and no literacy in English, was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000.”
.
Mr Lewis continued: Eisman knew that subprime lenders could be disreputable.
.
“What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism ... ‘We always asked the same question,’ says Mr Eisman. ‘Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.’ He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at Standard & Poors couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. ‘They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,’ Eisman says.”
.
That’s how we got here — a near total breakdown of responsibility at every link in our financial chain, and now we either bail out the people who brought us here or risk a total systemic crash.
.
These are the wages of our sins. I used to say our kids will pay dearly for this. But actually, it’s our problem. For the next few years we’re all going to be working harder for less money and fewer government services — if we’re lucky. THE NEW YORK TIMES
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dr Money
How they zapped you & I
FUNNY MONEY: Financial hit-and-run billionaires
Their weapons of mass destructions:
By Larry Haverkamp (Doc Money)
[email protected]

25 November 2008


Their weapons of mass destructions:

Structured products called 'credit and equity-linked notes'.

Their target:

Earthlings who are not smart enough and paid billions for such bombs.

The fallout: Collapse of structured products.
Jan 2007

FD (Big Cunning Boss): Our financial engineer has invented an even more potent structured product. What should we call it?

Secretary: How about Cutsey, Wootsy?

FD: Not now, Peachy Weechy. How about Sure Thing Bonds? What say you Mr Engineer?

FE:This will work fine. Investors pay us $100m for 'Sure Thing Bonds'. We use it to buy 150 risky bonds that pay a high interest rate, like 8%. We give investors 5% per year. We keep the balance 3%. Nice.

FD: But they're risky. What if the bonds go bust?

FE: Ahh, that's the beauty of it. The 5% we pay investors each year buys us 'risky bond insurance'. If 1 out of 6 companies OR 12 of the 150 bonds go bust, we get to keep their $100m. If none go broke, we still make a profit of 3% with NO RISK!

S: It's bad luck for investors and good luck for us.

Nov 24, 2008
S: Bad news. Twelve bonds have gone bust. The remainder are only worth $60m. Oh no! We owe $100m. We're finished!

FE: Don't worry, investors lose, we win.

FD: Yup, we took 'Risky Bond Insurance'. Let's file a claim and cash in!

S: I remember! When 12 bonds default, investors lose their $100m and we get to keep what is left from the 150 bonds. It comes to $60m. Hey, we made $60m! I could kiss you, Mr Financial Engineer!

FD: Hold that kiss! Are you sure, Mr Fancy Engineer? We've got a financial meltdown! There is chaos and destruction! How can it be good?

FE: It is only good for you, sir. You make $60m on your insurance contract. The investors who sold it lose $100m. The remaining $40m has gone up in smoke along with other market losses.

S: You're a genius. I will kiss you now!

FD: We got out of this mess alive AND get to keep all the investors' money. Gee, am I smart!

S: There is one little problem sir. Mr Tan Kin Lian is explaining all this to 1,000 investors at Speaker's Corner today. They'll wise up.

FD: Not to worry, we'll use the magic words: caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. It's their fault for not spotting our game earlier!:eek::biggrin::p
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Latest Update - 15 December 2008.

Its appears that the financial markets and institutions have stablised with clear evidence of inter-bank borrowing. The worst for this sector is over. FED/EU and other central banks have stepped and provided much needed liquidity but not to the level before the turmoil. There are however toxic assets that need to flow out.

Two other things are also clear , (1) Worldwide slowdown of economies and (2) deep recession expected in the US.

Stockmarkets will continue to react to bad news such as congress not helping the automakers etc. Companies are also not expected to return the profits of past years.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
bank crisis maybe over

but with jobs gone in massive number

no jobs no money to buy things they dun need

no one buys stuff

more jobs will be loss

the vicious cycle continue

until you have like japs have recently

10 + years of deflation

enjoy your good life while it last

horrible time ahead

but at least some of the FT will fxxk off from singapore

which is a good thing
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Latest Update - 15 December 2008.

Its appears that the financial markets and institutions have stablised with clear evidence of inter-bank borrowing. The worst for this sector is over. FED/EU and other central banks have stepped and provided much needed liquidity but not to the level before the turmoil. There are however toxic assets that need to flow out.

Two other things are also clear , (1) Worldwide slowdown of economies and (2) deep recession expected in the US.

Stockmarkets will continue to react to bad news such as congress not helping the automakers etc. Companies are also not expected to return the profits of past years.
Actually, there's only 1 reason for the financial crisis, isn't there?
-- Greedy Bastards.
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
bank crisis maybe over

but with jobs gone in massive number

no jobs no money to buy things they dun need

no one buys stuff

more jobs will be loss

the vicious cycle continue

until you have like japs have recently

10 + years of deflation

enjoy your good life while it last

horrible time ahead

but at least some of the FT will fxxk off from singapore

which is a good thing
The problem is that those FTs who fxxk off from SG may actually be the good and useful ones.
They go back to look after their families, get another job back home, obey the law by leaving once they don't have a permit, work hard to make another life for themselves.
Those who stay may be trying to con and scum their way here.
 
Top