Archive for April, 2010

Synthetic Collateralized Alchemy

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

What Was Wrought

CDO’s (collateralized debt obligations), see this for my introduction to these, depend on underpriced low grade debt. If I can get a 20% discount on debt that has a 10% chance of defaulting, then I should just buy this all day. All I need is enough risky debt (and some confidence in these percentages, but that’s a story for another day). But as CDOs became more and more popular low grade debt was getting used up. Even worse, as demand for it grew its price rose. CDOs were changing the entire ecosystem of low grade debt. There wasn’t enough of it and it was too pricey. There was no profit left. What to do?

One compelling answer was to simply issue more of it. Brokers could persuade people to take on deceptively structured mortgages, that could only get paid back if house prices rose forever. Lousy business plans were funded by people whose sole investment in the debt was they commission they got for issuing it. Dogs were being offered credit cards. These guys made the Glengarry Glenross salesmen seem like saints.

But there’s only so much new low grade debt that this can create and only so low you can go. Enough of it was issued to ruin the economic lives of people who thought they were just buying a house, but not enough to feed the maw.

Alchemy

What there was plenty of was collateralized debt. Some was graded AAA, some graded B. Why not buy these crappy debts and create CDOs? So, we start with $100 of debt that someone was misled into borrowing. We structure that to create $60 worth of grade B debt. Get enough of that and you can create another CDO, with $50 worth of single B tranches, and so on. $100 of crappy debt turns into $300 worth of crappy debt. (I’m making up all these numbers, but the principle is correct.) These were the synthetic CDOs. George Soros (that vicious communist) says pretty much that in April 23rd’s Financial Times.

So why was so much money lost? Why were trillions of dollars needed to prevent an economic meltdown?  It wasn’t because people took out trillions of dollars of mortgages they couldn’t afford. It happened because people got paid, and very well paid, for turning $100 worth of debt into $300 of debt. So they did it again, and again. What did they have to lose?

The Unexpected Cost of Lotteries

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

By definition, the expected value of a one in five chance of winning $10 dollars is worth $2 ($10/5). But to human beings, with our finite life spans and our asymmetric financial needs, a one in a million chance of $1,000,000 is not necessarily worth $1, it might be worth more.

Lottery tickets cost far, far more than their expected value. The amount you would win times the probability of you winning is pretty close to zero. They are, as far as expected value goes, practically worthless.

But despite what Adam Smith says, buying lottery tickets is not necessarily a bad idea. They’re vastly overpriced, but unless I’m already rich the difference winning $1,000,000 would make to my life is worth far more than the extra $1 I’m getting charged for my ticket.

Given the choice between $2 and a one in a million chance of a million dollars, I know which choice is more exciting. The poorer I am the more enticing that is. (If I’m well off I have many more, and better, opportunities to make money.)

The injustice of lotteries is that they exploit the perfectly natural assumption that if buying one ticket is a good idea buying 20 is 20 times better. But Adam Smith is right again: buying all the tickets would guarantee that you won the lottery and lost a fortune.

Lotteries are not a tax on stupidity, they are a tax on poverty and lack of opportunity that exploits an almost universal miscalculation of the effects of scale on risk and value.

They are a lousy form of taxation. If you want more money for schools, roads or, cultural institutions, then raise taxes, or issue bonds. Don’t fund opera from lotteries, that way poor people pay for things they can’t afford to enjoy.

Insurance and Mortality Curves

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

The life insurance business is very good at calculating the probability of you dying within the next year. It’s one of these things that we’ve being doing so long that we’re pretty good at it.

Given your circumstances, they can produce a curve showing the probability of you dying at any given year from then on.

Here is an hypothetical curve of life expectancy at birth. Babies have a higher risk of dying than older children, then it pretty much rises (though far more complexly than the curve below suggests).

morality curve

Given your circumstances

Your circumstances, the things that shape your probable mortality curve, are complex. Your sex, your ethnic mixture, your behavior, your age, (not always a negative, in Mediaeval Venice insurance for a 20 year old cost the same as that for a 40 year old, the 40 year old having proved himself immune to the prevailing diseases). These, and  many other dimensions, contribute to the shape of your mortality curve. Think of it as eHarmony calculating your annualized compatibility with death.

If the insurance companies can calculate these curves accurately enough, can sell enough insurance to even out the risks, and have enough capital behind them that they can survive a temporary run of bad luck, then they can charge a little bit above the real risk, and make a tidy, reliable profit. Paying over the odds can be well worth it for the individual, given the effect of catastrophe, and this can be a perfectly reasonable business. That’s what most of AIG did, and did well.

Insurance companies also have a get out of jail free card: the Act of God. Mortality curves can only take so much into account. If the earth’s crust splits, if a meteor strikes and makes half the planet uninhabitable, if the zombie epidemic finally erupts, or if the river floods (different insurance contracts are more or less inclusive in what they count as Acts of God), then all bets are off.

What Insurance Is

Insurance is a way of sharing risk. If we each have a one in a thousand chance of our house burning down, and we all pay two thousandths of the value of our house, then all things being equal, the people whose houses burn down will be paid back, and there’ll be some money left over as recompense to the people who set up the deal.

But insurance can’t reduce risk, it can only share it. And probabilities can only be calculated based on an enormous number of assumptions. The reliability of these assumptions is up for grabs. In the financial world the invisibility of these assumptions can have dire consequences. I shall take this up again in an overdue discussion of Credit Default Swaps.

How Collateralized Debt Works. (And Where It Got Us.)

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Collateralized debt sounds like a damn good idea, and it can be. It’s fairly complicated, but it isn’t rocket science, and it’s really worth knowing enough about to make sense of the news these days.

Bad Debt: 15% Off

Many relatively high risk borrowers need, or would like, credit; many investors would take a small profit provided there’s very little risk; some want to play the odds in the hope of a big payoff.

There isn’t enough high quality debt out there to supply the risk averse, and there’s lots of the dodgy stuff. This is the opportunity. I can buy lots of crappy debt cheap. A percentage of it will fail: some companies and people will not pay off their loans, their mortgages, their credit card debt. But there’s so much of it, that I can get it cheap. I can buy the collateral for much less than what it will actually (probably) pay. Now I can structure a deal.

The Waterfall Model

This is the waterfall:  one group (the equity investors) buy the collateral, and sell a tranche (a bunch of bonds) that will get paid first as that collateral pays off, making its purchasers a small profit. (Whoever is doing all the work of setting up this deal, usually a bank, will take a cut of that.) Then they sell a second tranche that will get paid from the money left after the first lot are paid. These purchasers get a slightly higher profit, and the structurer takes a cut of that. And so on. Maybe. The number, size and profitability of the tranches is where cleverness comes into it. It’s surprising how much high grade debt you can make out of low grade debt, about 80% or more, depending on your assumptions about the percentage of that debt is going to default.

If there’s any money left after all the tranches are paid the equity investors get it all. If the deal goes well and only about the expected percentage of debt used as collateral defaults, then these guys make a tidy profit. Everybody wins.

More dodgy credit can be issued, people who need to buy safe bonds get to do so, and people with lots of money get to take a tilt at a high score.

So far the only objectionable thing would be if the quality of the collateral was misrepresented, or if the bankers’ cut was unreasonably large. Below the diagram (not to scale, but accurately representing my graphic skills) is my explanation of what would be really nasty, possibly illegal, and what the SEC is saying happened. (I’m not a lawyer. Please do not sue me.)

The Waterfall of Collateralized Debt.

CDOs

Suppose I know that the collateral I’m buying is much crappier than I let on. (It’s like the right hand waterfall, while I’m pretending it’s like the left side.) Normally that would be a lousy idea. The amount I get paid selling the various tranches doesn’t cover my equity investment. But suppose I also take out insurance on these thranches failing?

Yes, you can do that. That’s what a CDS (Credit Default Swap) is: insurance against a default. Very clever, and surprisingly legal.

(A future post will try to explain CDSs in a little more detail.)

Since it was decided that it was legal to insure debt, somebody gets to sell that insurance. AIG lost the farm because it sold tons of it, believing it was insuring left hand waterfalls. People bought a tranche and then took out insurance so that if it defaulted they would get paid anyway. AIG sold tons of insurance against things that were much more likely to happen than they (probably, perhaps) realized. It’s a bit like taking someone’s money and pretending to buy their lottery ticket every week. That works really well unless they win the lottery.

I can even take out insurance on debt that I don’t own (no, really), betting on your failure. That’s ungentlemanly at best. But it gets worse.

Suppose I was to structure a deliberately crappy, right hand, deal, sell it as a left hand deal, and take out insurance on it failing? I get the insurance on all the tranches I sell, the people I sell them to get completely screwed, and I get rich. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Well, it might be illegal. Being the bank that takes its cut, knowing the full story, might also be illegal. In both cases it sure as hell should be.

What actually happens with these “structured investments”, legal and illegal alike, is, of course, much more complicated. But that’s the big picture.

The Goldman Sachs case will be worth following.