Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH, Monday, December 12, 2011 [View all]Roland99
(53,345 posts)73. Of course we don't need financial industry regulation!!!!
MF Global and the great Wall St re-hypothecation scandal
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Securities/Insight/2011/12_-_December/MF_Global_and_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/
In fact, by 2007, re-hypothecation had grown so large that it accounted
for half of the activity of the shadow banking system. Prior to Lehman
Brothers collapse, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
calculated that U.S. banks were receiving $4 trillion worth of funding
by re-hypothecation, much of which was sourced from the UK. With assets
being re-hypothecated many times over (known as churn), the original
collateral being used may have been as little as $1 trillion a quarter
of the financial footprint created through re-hypothecation.
...
Hence, when MF Global conceived of its Eurozone repo ruse, client funds
were waiting to be plundered for investment in AA rated European
sovereign debt, despite the fact that many of its hedge fund clients may
have been betting against the performance of those very same bonds.
...OFF BALANCE SHEET
As well as collateral risk, re-hypothecation creates significant
counterparty risk and its off-balance sheet treatment contains many
hidden nasties. Even without circumventing U.S. limits on
re-hypothecation, the off-balance sheet treatment means that the amount
of leverage (gearing) and systemic risk created in the system by
re-hypothecation is staggering.
Re-hypothecation transactions are off-balance sheet and are therefore unrestricted by
balance sheet controls. Whereas on balance sheet transactions
necessitate only appearing as an asset/liability on one banks balance
sheet and not another, off-balance sheet transactions can, and
frequently do, appear on multiple banks financial statements. What this
creates is chains of counterparty risk, where multiple re-hypothecation
borrowers use the same collateral over and over again. Essentially, it
is a chain of debt obligations that is only as strong as its weakest
link.
With collateral being re-hypothecated to a factor of four (according to IMF
estimates), the actual capital backing banks re-hypothecation
transactions may be as little as 25%. This churning of collateral means
that re-hypothecation transactions have been creating enormous amounts
of liquidity, much of which has no real asset backing.
for half of the activity of the shadow banking system. Prior to Lehman
Brothers collapse, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
calculated that U.S. banks were receiving $4 trillion worth of funding
by re-hypothecation, much of which was sourced from the UK. With assets
being re-hypothecated many times over (known as churn), the original
collateral being used may have been as little as $1 trillion a quarter
of the financial footprint created through re-hypothecation.
...
Hence, when MF Global conceived of its Eurozone repo ruse, client funds
were waiting to be plundered for investment in AA rated European
sovereign debt, despite the fact that many of its hedge fund clients may
have been betting against the performance of those very same bonds.
...OFF BALANCE SHEET
As well as collateral risk, re-hypothecation creates significant
counterparty risk and its off-balance sheet treatment contains many
hidden nasties. Even without circumventing U.S. limits on
re-hypothecation, the off-balance sheet treatment means that the amount
of leverage (gearing) and systemic risk created in the system by
re-hypothecation is staggering.
Re-hypothecation transactions are off-balance sheet and are therefore unrestricted by
balance sheet controls. Whereas on balance sheet transactions
necessitate only appearing as an asset/liability on one banks balance
sheet and not another, off-balance sheet transactions can, and
frequently do, appear on multiple banks financial statements. What this
creates is chains of counterparty risk, where multiple re-hypothecation
borrowers use the same collateral over and over again. Essentially, it
is a chain of debt obligations that is only as strong as its weakest
link.
With collateral being re-hypothecated to a factor of four (according to IMF
estimates), the actual capital backing banks re-hypothecation
transactions may be as little as 25%. This churning of collateral means
that re-hypothecation transactions have been creating enormous amounts
of liquidity, much of which has no real asset backing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think it belongs in LBN for the same reason that even NPR updates Market numbers all day
bread_and_roses
Dec 2011
#23
Wow, this is like back to the future. It's already Monday somewhere, I guess - LOL!
InkAddict
Dec 2011
#11
Perhaps lobbying the rotating honchos at LBN and/or Admin could recover SMW posting rights there,
Ghost Dog
Dec 2011
#98
Once again, the SMW thread that was posted and locked was NOT a current SMW OP
Tansy_Gold
Dec 2011
#97
There is a lot of deja vu going on, and to different periods of modern European history.
amandabeech
Dec 2011
#87
Well, perhaps here is a market opening for a firm actually contractually committing itself to not
amandabeech
Dec 2011
#88