I’m just using Citi as an example. For your line of reasoning to be tenable, you have to believe that the net CDS loss exposure – the Black Hole, as you put it – to the Big Banks is – essentially – these companies’ entire balance sheets. I think even Roubini would have a problem with this line of reasoning.
Don’t get me wrong. The CDS exposure is an issue. And I’m sure a lot of this crap got mismatched/improperly hedged, so there are net losses lurking out there. (But there are also net gains lurking out there, as well.) But I think the larger problem at the Big Banks is realized loan losses at this point. I doubt there are any banks out there that did as poor a job with their CDS books as did AIG – which did virtually no hedging on a huge part of their book of business… which is why we now own them.
[/quote]
shows citi to have some 38 trillion in derivative exposure. 10 percent loss on that exposure = 3.8 trillion in real dollars. a ten percent loss in the current environment seems reasonable given the massive drop in asset/debt values.
examines what cds’ actually are: fake insurance used to bolster balance sheets. if these fake insurance policies are being used to prop up the asset values on the bank balance sheets, the result is assets + debts = black hole. the asset values are unknown, the cds contracts have to be assumed worthless because the selling institution haven’t the ability (and possibly, no intention) of covering the liability, and the debts are mounting.
what benefits are being obtained by breaking the rule of law and funding criminals? how is this in any way “saving the system”? what *is* the “system” being saved here and why is it absolutely necessary?
