PDA

View Full Version : Derivative market explained.


Charles
03-17-2010, 10:42 PM
Subject: An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually
all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer
afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new
marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She
keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the
customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy
and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar.
Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit .

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi
gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases
her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently,
Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic
vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts
constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He
sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the
unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make
huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS,
ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on
international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that
the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts
of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb,
and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the
nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at
the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on
the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed
alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot
fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes
and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The
collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from
issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the
community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and
had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They
find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with
losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also
claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured
for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who
immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective
executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings
attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required
for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class,
non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Now, do you understand?

Chas

tincat
03-18-2010, 01:27 AM
very, very good.

Sandy G
03-18-2010, 05:34 AM
"...An' th' Music goes Round 'n' Round, & it comes out Here..." Hehehehehehehehe...

JJIII
03-18-2010, 05:39 AM
I propose a toast to Charles.. Here's to you sir!

cabinover
03-18-2010, 06:04 AM
Thanks for the plain english explanation. Well done.

BlueStreak
03-18-2010, 09:52 AM
Seen it before.

Dave

Charles
03-18-2010, 02:22 PM
Seen it before.

Dave

Sourpuss.

Chas

finnbow
03-18-2010, 02:55 PM
I think I need a drink. If Charles' explanation didn't sink in fully, load up this clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust)and slide the bar over to 6:40. It'll explain things further.

noonereal
03-18-2010, 04:17 PM
The recap does not explain how the the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives were "entitled" to this help that the others did not receive.

Charles
03-18-2010, 08:18 PM
I think I need a drink. If Charles' explanation didn't sink in fully, load up this clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust)and slide the bar over to 6:40. It'll explain things further.

I tried, but it kept locking up on me. My IPS is bad about dropping the ball.

Chas

Charles
03-18-2010, 08:20 PM
The recap does not explain how the the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives were "entitled" to this help that the others did not receive.

Cronyism. You missed it.

Chas

noonereal
03-19-2010, 07:53 AM
Cronyism. You missed it.

Chas

and the reason their actions is not being investigated by an independent prosecutor?

This would be a lay up.

Charles
03-19-2010, 09:24 AM
and the reason their actions is not being investigated by an independent prosecutor?

This would be a lay up.

Cronyism.

Chas

noonereal
03-19-2010, 01:01 PM
Cronyism.

Chas

as so often the case, you are right

Charles
03-19-2010, 02:17 PM
as so often the case, you are right

Only thing wrong with cronyism is we've got lousy cronies.

Chas

noonereal
03-19-2010, 02:24 PM
Only thing wrong with cronyism is we've got lousy cronies.

Chas

:rolleyes:

yeah I suppose you are right. :D

piece-itpete
03-19-2010, 02:39 PM
Excellent.

Noone, they're entitled because they're in charge!

Pete

merrylander
03-19-2010, 03:18 PM
Thanks to Phil Gramm and Robert Rubin there was nothing for which to prosecute them, Glass Stegal being dead with what do you propose we charge them?

noonereal
03-19-2010, 03:31 PM
Thanks to Phil Gramm and Robert Rubin there was nothing for which to prosecute them, Glass Stegal being dead with what do you propose we charge them?

Well I know it was common practice to submit fictitious and falsified documents
and it was common knowledge. It would be easy to strike a deal with the thousands of appraisers and mortgage brokers who did this to see how far up the ladder it went. My guess would be everyone was aware at all levels.
I do not know what laws apply when but no one is looking into it and I doubt all laws were followed.
I'd be shocked if some important bankers could not be convicted.

Charles
03-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Well I know it was common practice to submit fictitious and falsified documents
and it was common knowledge. It would be easy to strike a deal with the thousands of appraisers and mortgage brokers who did this to see how far up the ladder it went. My guess would be everyone was aware at all levels.
I do not know what laws apply when but no one is looking into it and I doubt all laws were followed.
I'd be shocked if some important bankers could not be convicted.

Don't forget the politicians.

Chas

merrylander
03-20-2010, 06:52 AM
Well I know it was common practice to submit fictitious and falsified documents
and it was common knowledge. It would be easy to strike a deal with the thousands of appraisers and mortgage brokers who did this to see how far up the ladder it went. My guess would be everyone was aware at all levels.
I do not know what laws apply when but no one is looking into it and I doubt all laws were followed.
I'd be shocked if some important bankers could not be convicted.

I have been telling you for some time that our mortgage laws were designed by thieves, for thieves. There are so many holes in them that I truly doubt you could get a conviction.

noonereal
03-20-2010, 06:57 AM
I have been telling you for some time that our mortgage laws were designed by thieves, for thieves. There are so many holes in them that I truly doubt you could get a conviction.

It became so greedy and so matter of fact that the atmosphere would lead to to believe that many crossed the legal line. Even if you are right to not even investigate?
And what about the bottom feeders who made hundred of thousands a year? This would be a lay up.