ZIGAS & ASSOCIATES
INNOVATION - LEADERSHIP - STRATEGY

Blog

Welcome!

Please read and comment on the entries that follow.  The most current one will be highlighted on this page; earlier entries can be found under the archives link below.


Telling it Straight

February 25, 2010

If you have a credit card, or have been paying attention to the news lately, you know that Congress last year passed important legislation curbing abuses in the credit card industry.  Responding to consumer complaints about arbitrary fees, interest rate increases on existing balances, and other income generating tactics banks have rolled out in recent years, Congress banned these and other practices in the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009.  

As usual, leave it to The Daily Show to completely capture just how outrageous life in our times has become.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cMake it Rain - Bank of Americawww.thedailyshow.comDaily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorVancouverage 2010

Read more...

How Much Does it Take?

February 25, 2010

Bloomberg News reports that new documents obtained by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) suggest that Goldman Sachs was the underwriter of some of the most toxic securities against which it then bought credit default swaps from ill-fated American Insurance Group (AIG) at the height of the Wall Street subprime feeding frenzy.  

As the article states it, 

The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place.

Goldman presumably did not contact the buyers of the notes they underwrote to warn them of their own bet against them.  The cynical transfer of risk to the customer is bad enough.  The profit-taking on their misfortune adds insult to injury.

This article, first reported on Bloomberg’s website and in the April issue of its magazine, was then followed by revelations that Goldman helped the Greek government expand its borrowing capacity by using off-balance sheet transactions that essentially hid the extent of their indebtedness.  According to the Feb. 25, 2010 New York Times, 

In 2000 and 2001, Goldman helped Athens quietly borrow billions by creating derivatives that essentially transformed loans into currency trades that did not have to be disclosed under European rules. The instruments, called currency swaps, helped Greece stay within the limits on deficit spending that were crucial to Greece joining the euro, the common European currency now used by 16 countries.

According to Bloomberg on Feb. 17, 2010, Goldman later was part of underwriting $15 billion in bonds sold by the Greek government after helping the Greeks hide the full extent of their indebtedness with the currency swap.  

No mention was made of the swap in sales documents for the securities in at least six of the 10 sales the bank arranged for Greece since the transaction, according to a review of the prospectuses by Bloomberg. The New York-based firm helped Greece raise $1 billion of off-balance-sheet funding in 2002 through the swap, which European Union regulators said they knew nothing about until recent days.

Failing to disclose the swap may have allowed Goldman, a co-lead manager on many of the sales, other underwriters and Greece to get a better price for the securities, said Bill Blain, co-head of fixed income at Matrix Corporate Capital LLP, a London-based broker and fund manager.

“The price of bonds should reflect the reality of Greece’s finances,” Blain said. “If a bank was selling them to investors on the basis of publicly available information, and they were aware that information was incorrect, then investors have been fooled.”

Astoundingly, even in the face of this continuing cascade of evidence of Wall Street’s amoral “take the money and run” attitude, the US Senate remains mired in negotiations to bring forth a financial reform package that could address these and other depradations.  What is it going to take to get us off the dime on this?

Read more...

More Pitchforks?

February 06, 2010

When the mortgage crisis first started unfolding, I remember reading in a number of articles how Goldman Sachs had been more clever than other firms in avoiding heavy exposures to subprime mortgage bonds.  In fact, at least one article pointed out that Goldman had been betting against the subprime securities market for its own accounts, even while still trading the bonds for customers.  

When Goldman's counterparty AIG faltered, the U.S. Government stepped in to back up its insurance contracts on bonds.  The firm itself had traded directly on the parent company's legendary AAA status.  But it turned out they did not have nearly enough capital to cover all the bets they'd made.  Like a bookie who's taken the wrong side of too many "sure things," AIG was busted and American taxpayers ended up having to bail them out.  Among the biggest winners in this game?  Goldman Sachs, who received an estimated $12 billion in taxpayer money funnelled through AIG to make good on their contracts. 

Today's New York Times extends the debate about Goldman's role in the market's unraveling, outlining in a lengthy article how Goldman resisted AIG's attempts to pay less than full value on the contracts, arguing that the securities they'd guaranteed were worth more than Goldman claimed.

Perhaps the commission headed by former California Treasurer Philip Angelides will get to the bottom of who did what to whom.  For now, it seems safe to say that the behavior that seemed so smart two years ago may prove to have been too smart by half when re-examined in the wake of the worst financial crisis in more than 70 years.

Read more...

Zombies In The House

February 03, 2010

Just when you thought it was starting to be safe again outside, analysts are beginning to tote up the costs facing banks and others from buy-back demands from insurers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  

With losses still mounting from failing home loans, more and more scrutiny is being applied to the underlying loans and their documentation and underwriting.  When Fannie or Freddie securitize or buy a loan, they require sellers to warrant that they have followed all the guidelines required by the companies.  When bond insurers or mortgage insurers write policies on mortgages or bonds backed by them, they do the same.

With billions at stake, it’s not surprising that these lenders are going over files with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any opportunity to force the originator to make good on their promise to buy back faulty loans.  A recent Housing Wire article calls this a “$10 billion problem.”  Best quote is from Chris Whelan, Managing Director at Institutional Risk Analytics:

“The wave of loan repurchase demands on securitization sponsors is the next area of fun in the zombie dance party, namely the part where different zombies start to eat each other.”

Read more...

Fannie Mae Sales: 3.5 Percent Back

February 01, 2010

Fannie Mae on January 28, 2010 announced a new program through which owner occupant buyers of any of its owned real estate (REO) will receive a 3.5 percent rebate on the final sales price.  The rebate can be used either for closing costs or as a credit for purchase of appliances.  The offer is available for any purchase of one of Fannie Mae’s HomePath properties until May 1, 2010.  These properties are listed on Fannie Mae’s HomePath website.

Read more...

Page 9 of 15 pages < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > Last

Blog Archive >>