Untangling credit default swaps

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 12 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 76

  • @calum.macleod
    @calum.macleod 3 роки тому +17

    Very well explained. Thirteen years later it is fascinating to watch a description of credit default swaps from 2008, after it turns out that so many partially colateralised insurance contracts existed and that the losses were ultimately socialised onto the general population by governments who decided to support some subset of high stakes gamblers.
    It will be interesting to see how decentralized finance contracts address this and hopefully avoid the moral hazard.

  • @anirbanchowdhury3210
    @anirbanchowdhury3210 12 років тому +24

    Its amazing how u have explained such a complex stuff so simply!

  • @larrys7927
    @larrys7927 6 років тому +57

    At the end of it all, the banks (and hedge funds) find themselves needing a drink.

    • @paulmendes9315
      @paulmendes9315 4 роки тому

      Thats what I thought of commenting as well.

  • @hypotheticallycorrect
    @hypotheticallycorrect 5 років тому +10

    The way you explain complex concepts is amazing. Thank you!

  • @ahmetince3850
    @ahmetince3850 4 роки тому +2

    You are excellent. Such complicated issues yet you make it so simple and very interesting to follow. Thank you. A Ince

  • @meiyokechan1396
    @meiyokechan1396 4 роки тому +1

    thanks for the explanation which is crystal clear, as it is supported by an appropriate analogy which makes the concept easy to understand

  • @fabios.29
    @fabios.29 5 років тому +1

    This channel deserves to be bigger! Very great videos! Thank you very much!

    • @kingtigercrownestate9102
      @kingtigercrownestate9102 2 роки тому +1

      People do not want to have to sit and learn they want to make fast money as easily and as speculatively as possible and skip having to sit and learn too much first.
      People want to hit the ground running and turn $20 into $2,000,000 in a year following the trendy stock of the day or week without having the discipline to sit and learn everything they need to no first people wand fast easy lazy money.

  • @alectapia7549
    @alectapia7549 2 роки тому +1

    This is AMAZING! I can't believe how well this was explained!

    • @millenialmusings8451
      @millenialmusings8451 Рік тому +1

      This video is 15 years old. Back when UA-cam was not a grifter heaven for flashy and trashy clickbait content

  • @vinylwarmth
    @vinylwarmth 3 місяці тому

    This man is a gifted teacher

  • @roseymalino9855
    @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому

    @4:42 you say 'that's the little wrinkle that makes a CDS different from an insurance contract' because the insurance company insuring the GM bonds insured the insurance policy for the GM bonds. But @3:19 you say the insurance policy on the GM bonds is essentially a CDS. So are there 2 CDS's in your example? Does something have to be specifically titled a CDS to be a CDS such as a bank CD is titled CD which distinguishes it other bank holdings?

  • @Tweetogreggieb59
    @Tweetogreggieb59 2 роки тому

    2 thumbs up good and reliable content From this host consistently videos recommended.

  • @abhinavitsmebellamy
    @abhinavitsmebellamy 5 років тому +1

    So well explained. Thank you!!

  • @WilliamStoneman
    @WilliamStoneman 16 років тому +1

    Very nicely explained indeed.

  • @MikeAulov
    @MikeAulov 7 років тому +2

    Hey Paddy!
    quick q: has any of it changed in the past decade? is there a government agency that's keeping track of how big the "web" is becoming and how interdependent companies are?

  • @jmmbuthia
    @jmmbuthia 2 роки тому

    Best explanation to a layman about CDS

  • @pixl6874
    @pixl6874 2 роки тому

    How do the SHFs hide their shorts in the TRS? We see direct SSI being removed, but how is it being hidden in swaps?

  • @SceneryBreak
    @SceneryBreak 2 роки тому +2

    Here before Credit Suisse defaults

  •  3 роки тому

    watching from India thanks sir

  • @vbmbs
    @vbmbs 16 років тому

    The real cause underlying this was the fact that we required banks to loan money to people who could not afford the home they were buying simply because they were a miniority. It started in 1977 with Community Reinvestment Act and then further strengthened in 1992. Thus banks were overly regulated to the extent that they could not use sound banking practices normally used in evaluating credit for home purchases.

  • @mrmoop58
    @mrmoop58 2 роки тому

    Wonder how credit suiesse is going to do this week?

  • @penfro
    @penfro 15 років тому +1

    Great explanation - thank you

  • @moonlight293
    @moonlight293 16 років тому +1

    it was to help with the insurance analogy :)

  • @millenialmusings8451
    @millenialmusings8451 Рік тому +1

    This video is 15 years old. Back when UA-cam was not a grifter heaven for flashy and trashy clickbait content

  • @goldfox399
    @goldfox399 Рік тому

    Why isn't Jim just buying the GM Bond himself and taking the risk in the movement on the price rather than a capped upside (the premium) vs an unknown downside (the cost of paying out maximum that the bond goes to zero)?

  • @prajwalthapa8390
    @prajwalthapa8390 2 роки тому

    thought ' we all needed a drink' in the end! :)

  • @vbg1980
    @vbg1980 8 років тому +1

    This gets complicated because the insurance contract are not regulated by the banks or FI properly. Suppose, there were constraints or no permits on the credit swap by way of bonds held in a company to an insurance contracts, plus the reselling of such contracts are restrained to few, it could stop the hole or web of defaults in the financial system in easier way.

  • @AnotherInternetThing
    @AnotherInternetThing Рік тому

    These are so good.

  • @audbad5
    @audbad5 12 років тому

    Very well explained. thanks

  • @LordD280
    @LordD280 5 років тому

    One part of this I still don't understand. At the end you say 'Sam' may have no exposure to the GM bonds. Meaning he doesn't have to actually own the bonds in order to do a CDS contract on them? As noted that just makes it basically a bet. Was trying to think about that relating to insuring the more traditional Ferrari. You would have to actually own the vehicle you want to insure, right? Or would you?

    • @roseymalino9855
      @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому

      That was a hypothecation.Those hypothecations didn't make a lot of sense.Generally, to obtain insurance, one has to show they have an interest or a need. I can't just offhandedly insure my neighbors house. The insurer would have to be concerned I would destroy the house just to collect. As to owning the Ferrari example. If I hold an IOU from someone and the Ferrari is his collateral, I could obtain insurance but likely would require the knowledge and consent and signature of the Ferrari owner.

    • @zenastronomy
      @zenastronomy 2 роки тому +1

      I might be wrong.
      but i believe you don't have to own the underlying assets e.g. the bonds.
      most of these cds contracts are derivative trades.
      so sam can pay aig/jim the premium on the derived price of GM bonds that is traded on the market.
      so sam will pay the 1% premium for whatever amount of cds insurance he wants to aig, say 10million.
      and then when gm motors defaults and a credit event happens, the bonds collapses.
      then a credit default auction is held. where the defaulted gm bonds arr auctioned off.
      in the auction market, say the bonds lost 90%. sam goes to aig and asks for his 90% of 10mlllion.
      the contract will probably have the terms and conditions for what constitutes a credit event that triggers the claim. and how to settle the claim.
      it seems cds contracts are derivatives. and no one actually owms the bonds. they are all just gambling on prices and events .

  • @leighjohnharvey
    @leighjohnharvey 4 роки тому

    So who was Marc Baum in this ? I understand the concept but not where the guys who made all the Money where in the equation

    • @roseymalino9855
      @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому

      Frontpoint (Mark Baum), Brownfield (Jamie & Charlie) purchased CDS's through Jared V's bank. Scion (M. Bury) purchased CDS's through multiple institutions. They were the part in his example about not having a direct interest in GM. They didn't own any MBS's products. They were shorting the MBS's; i.e., 'betting' against them, just on the off chance they would fail.

  • @agreen182
    @agreen182 7 років тому

    Thanks, Wall Street!

  • @acegibson9533
    @acegibson9533 2 роки тому +1

    I follow the CDS index. If you see that shooting through the roof that means the economy is doomed.

  • @BigO8872
    @BigO8872 16 років тому

    Thank you for that, It was very interesting and on a level where I could understand what was really happening. This web seems like an interesting phenomenon that will be restricted in some sense in the near future. I am not sure how the gambling on the system works though, it seems like you are just keeping the same value, unless you get to keep the collateral...

    • @roseymalino9855
      @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому

      You may understand his example but does it accurately reflect what he claims?

  • @samuelblanchette9710
    @samuelblanchette9710 3 роки тому +1

    An ape thanks you for the explanation

  • @sheikhsk
    @sheikhsk 16 років тому

    yea.. and with all those companies going bust malangope, thousands if not milions people would lose their jobs, meaning they would have no income to repay their mortages, their homes would be repossed and put on sale increasing the supply again and pushing the prices of homes down even further..and then it'd be really bad man!

  • @pakasson
    @pakasson 16 років тому

    Good video

  • @tomp4925
    @tomp4925 5 років тому +1

    "It's not alchemy".
    I'm not convinced.
    But as you admit, it's gambling.
    And the taxpayers were losers when then weren't even involved.
    Rake in the premiums but when things go awry they were unable to cover their bets.
    Maybe not alchemy but they sure tried for the easy money like an alchemist.

    • @roseymalino9855
      @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому

      Except for the money funneled to political cronies, the Gov't was more than reimbursed. AIG stock (acquired through TARP) recovered and the Gov't sold it at a premium. The Gov't grabbed the dividend proceeds from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and all in all did well for itself. Not sure any of this benefited taxpayers though.

  • @codenameHara
    @codenameHara 3 роки тому +1

    I feel sorry for Jim.

  • @kentheengineer592
    @kentheengineer592 7 років тому

    in short sam is paying the other guy to take on the risk in case the bonds defult or go bust

  • @lvecsey
    @lvecsey 16 років тому

    someone did a poor job computing riek
    one day we might be able to look back and partially go 'fossil' hunting, with a computer generated visual of all the interlinks
    good point about people betting on the counter party to accept a bad end of a deal

  • @chrisjenkins9978
    @chrisjenkins9978 5 років тому

    What about the deductible? This is gambling with other people’s money. If I get into an accident, the taxpayers don’t pay the insurance company to fix my car. More than somebody needing a drink, somebody needs to go to prison for this scam.

    • @roseymalino9855
      @roseymalino9855 2 роки тому +1

      Where's the scam? Insurance companies have failed before. During the Savings and Loan mess in the Carter administration insurance companies saw the collapse imminent and declared bankruptcy and turned over all their assets to the government and walked away. The insurance companies saw the problem building and unsuccessfully tried to get the government oversight agencies to crack down. Same as what happened with sub-prime mortgages. As early as 2002, during a House banking committee hearing, the monitors were scolded and threatened with dismissal for raising issues which were looming.

  • @F00dTube
    @F00dTube 16 років тому +1

    SCOTTDAVIDSON32: Please explain how it is we have been slaves?

    • @kentheengineer592
      @kentheengineer592 7 років тому +1

      im not SCOTTDAVIDSON32: but im my own opinion in your question or statement i would like to say this: ignorance is bliss meaning people do not care about what they don't know and knowing is about discovering and testing your idea's that were generated through making connections from creating your own methods that float your bloat in the process of trial and error

  • @malangope
    @malangope 16 років тому

    Then let the companys that made these foolish contracts go down with them and don't bail them out with the tax payers money.

  • @dontbe
    @dontbe 16 років тому +5

    Nice explanation.. but one more complication to the web is the first guy could resell or lend the 5mil because he no longer had the risk.. this could have gone in infinitely.
    And that is why we need democrats to re regulate the corps that have shown they could not regulate themselves. :)

  • @samdiesel2000
    @samdiesel2000 5 років тому +1

    Needing badly a drink

  • @jbryant13
    @jbryant13 16 років тому +1

    Let me save you 11 minutes - Wall Street is a casino and the house always wins.

    • @nickv4073
      @nickv4073 6 років тому

      Just wondering how you feel about it 9 years later. I'm a buy and hold investor. I've done very well. How did that bank savings account work out for you? lol!! The house only wins if you play their game.

    • @bojangles6444
      @bojangles6444 3 роки тому

      Yeah lol. They let me win too- I bought apple in 09. Still have most of it. Glad I went to the casino.

  • @Rikohness
    @Rikohness 16 років тому

    THANK YOU!! oh my gosh

  • @indabushwoman
    @indabushwoman 16 років тому +1

    EAT THE RICH!

  • @MP16298
    @MP16298 5 років тому +1

    This is madness

  • @SCOTTDAVIDSON32
    @SCOTTDAVIDSON32 16 років тому +1

    first the africans who were brought here was involuntary servitude Now, are you obliged to do as a police officer says? How bout a judge? IRS? If you can be commanded by someone else and will end up behind bars if you don't, are you not a slave? The funny thing is that we have agreed to be slaves! Googlevideo: robert menard and winston shrout I am learning how to become a free man once again let me know what you think