Started By
Message

re: Just finished reading 'The Big Short' - questions

Posted on 11/21/12 at 11:24 pm to
Posted by Dead Mike
Cell Block 4
Member since Mar 2010
3387 posts
Posted on 11/21/12 at 11:24 pm to
quote:

1) I don't think I completely understand the concept of 'synthetic' CDOs. The way Michael Lewis explains this it seems like you could keep repackaging CDSs that you buy on sub-prime triple B rated bonds into synthetic CDOs, the idea being you use CDSs to replicate the worst of the bonds many times over since the banks couldn't extend home loans fast enough to whet their appetite, so to speak.


A synthetic CDO is basically a conditional collateralized debt obligation, that is to say, it's a collection of collateralized debts that are not actually debts at the time but will be if certain conditions are met.

From what I remember, the credit default swaps that were being offered by AIG and whatnot were insuring the default risk of triple A rated subprime mortgage bonds (could've been the CDOs comprised of the lesser tranches of mortgage bonds, I'm not sure). On paper, the issuers of credit default swaps were insuring against the default of bonds rated on the same level as U.S. treasury bonds. On paper, buying a credit default swap on that kind of bond would be a sucker's bet; I think the CDS payouts were triggered by a percentage of defaults within a given bond, which was considered unlikely for an investment of that grade. Thus, for the issuer of a synthetic CDO, almost everything out there was hedged on that synthetic CDO being worthless.

I'm not sure what you mean by repackaging CDSs though. Are you wondering why they didn't offer an infinite amount of synthetic CDOs to be purchased by a relatively small number of investors (at the time)?
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 11:26 pm
Posted by rickgrimes
Member since Jan 2011
4181 posts
Posted on 11/22/12 at 2:00 am to
quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by repackaging CDSs though. Are you wondering why they didn't offer an infinite amount of synthetic CDOs to be purchased by a relatively small number of investors (at the time)?


Yes. The italicized sentence in particular is interesting to me:

The details were complicated, but the gist of this new money machine was not: It turned a lot of dicey loans into a pile of bonds, most of which were triple-A-rated, then it took the lowest-rated of the remaining bonds and turned most of those into triple-A CDOs. And then--because it could not extend home loans fast enough to create a sufficient number of lower-rated bonds--it used credit default swaps to replicate the very worst of the existing bonds, many times over.

So did the IBs game the system as much as they could? Could they have created an even bigger mess?
This post was edited on 11/22/12 at 2:09 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram