Subprime Credit Crunch Could Trigger Collapse
Permalink Posted on 02-02-2007 at 02:19:12 am by Aaron Email , 929 words, 50028 views  

Some of you might have seen my new informational site, the Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter. But for those who haven't, I started this site to coherently track a story that is otherwise only quietly developing on a smattering of disparate finance blogs and message boards, with little treatment in the mainstream media (MSM). That story is the collapse of mortgage lending finance, especially in the subprime sector.

I and others had been expecting this for the better part of the last year (many, even longer, but I'm a newer observer). The subprime shakeout is predicated on the deterioration of subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which is in turn caused by rising delinquencies, which is in turn caused by the deteriorating financial position of most Americans. So really, it was a no-brainer, except apparently to the brilliant boyz of finance who listen to too many talking heads telling them what they want to hear about the "goldilocks" economy.

Well, I've got news for the goldilocksters: the three bears are home.

The effects of these deteriorating economic fundamentals are now starting to show up in the finance world (which is not the same as, but all too often confused with, the real world):


The chart is a graph of the value of BBB (subprime) mortgage-backed securities dated as of the second half of 2006. I've been following it for months, yet the latest move of just the past couple days still surprised me: it's almost going vertical... downward. Not good.

If you go to MarkIt's ABX credit index home, you can pull up charts for other classes of mortgages (above BBB are A, AA, and AAA), and different date issues, and see how they're doing.

It's a fascinating exercise. You can see that immediately when subprime (BBB) 2006-02 started to crash, there was a "flight to quality" into the As. But as BBB continued to collapse, A began to follow, and then AA, and then even AAA. The effect also began to spread to earlier and later issues; a veritable "shockwave" emanating out from the BBB-2006-02 subprime issues -- ground zero.

I can't quite stress how much this is not good. That's because it gets more complex than just a bunch of holders of mortgage-backed bonds ending up with crappy returns: enter derivatives.

In recent years, derivatives began to be used more heavily, to "buy insurance" on various investments and trades, in case of default or other unexpected moves. Derivatives such as these have skyrocketed to a notational value of somewhere around $400 trillion, by some reports. Why? Because they became so cheap... because nothing financially "bad" had happened in a while. Tremendous quantities of liquidity will do that... until one day exhaustion bursts the bubble. Well, the regular folks down in the "real economy" are seeming quite exhausted.

The tie-in to MBS is as follows: banks and other holders of MBS (like hedge funds) wanted to book their gains immediately ("marking them to market"), so they bought insurance on their MBS in the form of derivatives ("credit default swaps" or "CDS"), and then were able to sell them with a slight markup or use them as "guilt-free" collateral for other speculative plays. Aside from some flogging of these securities to foreigners and the general public (e.g. pension funds), the major financial institutions just sold these things to each other: last I heard, US banks still hold well over 50% of their assets in the form of real estate-related securities.

All this MBS trading and CDS insuring amongst the same pool of entities seems apt to be a setup for a disaster: if MBS returns widely suffer, then someone must pay up on the CDS "insurance". But since retail banks, mortgage banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and private equity have all been both buying selling these things amongst each other, you end up with an undifferentiated soup of liability with no distinct bearers of risk.

And by the way, since derivatives encourage more spending and speculation, they in essence are liquidity (as outlined above), so they essentially beget more of themselves. The credit bubble becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... for a time.

In sum, the entire financial economy looks vulnerable to a rout here, as the baseline level of default is suddenly becoming much higher. This failure is already cascading through the various grades and vintages of MBS, but as returns fall and CDS obligations must be made good on, there will likely occur a credit crunch that will begin to drive down financial asset prices in general. This will, of course, further harm returns and trigger derivatives obligations, becoming a self-reinforcing, downward-accelerating feedback loop.

The Fed is clearly already trying to stop it, with the accelerated M3 money growth (as was also done in 2000/2001), but it's already too late. The stock market is obediently being inflated, but that does little to distribute wealth to the suffering masses in debt, who are the source of these rising MBS defaults.

New subprime lending is shutting down fast, as reported on the Implode-O-Meter, but not just because of companies going out of business: the risks are now becoming obvious, so financial firms (even large ones, like JP Morgan) are scaling back or eliminating their non-prime lending activities. But this sort of lending, as of late last year, accounted for nearly a quarter of total loan activity. Can anyone guess what is going to happen to the housing market when you forcibly remove at least a quarter of total demand?

I sure hope it all doesn't turn out to be as bad as it looks like it will be.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Steve Waldman [Visitor] Email · http://www.interfluidity.com/
Aaron -- Nice post. I like the soup metaphor: "you end up with an undifferentiated soup of liability with no distinct bearers of risk." If you'll excuse a bit of vulgarity, think of a prankster-ish little boy who wants to see if he can get away with peeing the family soup. One day, he finds a pot unattended by his mother on the stove, and he lets a drop drip. That evening, the soup is served and no one notices anything. Emboldened, the next time soup is made, he tries two drops. Still, nothing. He giggles, and enjoys watching everybody else eat with relish (while he, suddenly, has decided he hates chicken soup). And so it goes, for a while. But you can pee in a pot of soup only so long before something bad happens. One day, he lets it rip just a bit too much, and all of a sudden the jig is up. The thing about dilution is that it means that either nothing tastes bad, or everything does.

Parenthetically, I have an e-mail from you (Aaron) that is unresponded only because my world is dead, colocated server hard drive exploded, and (very embarrassingly for an IT professional), i'm without mail, website, dns etc for several days now. i feel like a prom queen having a bad hair day i'm so mortified. but expect a response when i have a world again. (i hate sending mail from addresses i don't want people to use.)

btw, the implode-o-meter is a great resource. thx for that!
PermalinkPermalink 02-02-2007 @ 05:00
Comment from: Justin [Member]

New subprime lending is shutting down fast, as reported on the Implode-O-Meter, but not just because of companies going out of business: the risks are now becoming obvious, so financial firms (even large ones, like JP Morgan) are scaling back or eliminating their non-prime lending activities. But this sort of lending, as of late last year, accounted for nearly a quarter of total loan activity. Can anyone guess what is going to happen to the housing market when you forcibly remove at least a quarter of total demand?


Great post, Aaron. I loved this last part because it's so difficult to argue with such raw logic. You eliminate a quarter of demand and what do you think will happen?

I mentioned this to you a few days ago over IM, but it bears passing on to the larger audience for their own anecdotal benefit.

A friend of mine left his job at Wachovia about a year ago to start his own real estate business. To finance the real estate, he was doing a number of used car sales - going to auctions, buying vehicles and selling them. On the real estate front, he was looking for value buys to sell. In both ventures, business was booming - until late 2006. Since then, things have fallen off significantly. A couple weeks ago he related to me the following two pieces of information:

  1. A month prior, he could get someone with a poor, poor credit score of 520 into a subprime mortgage at 9%. At the time of our conversation, they wouldn't even consider a loan to anyone with a credit score below 600. That's a monumental increase.
  2. He can't find clients with decent credit. People he shows houses to appear to have decent scores, but when he runs the numbers, they are terrible. As a result of this fact combined with point 1, he can't make any sales.

So I don't know how this can be ignored much longer. Maybe the MSM will pick up the ML I-O-M sometime soon.

Yeah, right.
PermalinkPermalink 02-02-2007 @ 10:19
Comment from: Tim [Visitor] Email
Very nice work - somehow I get the feeling that Paulson will swoop in and make that curve go back up - somehow.
PermalinkPermalink 02-02-2007 @ 14:49
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
Tim,

We've been conditioned to think that, haven't we. But the phrase "pushing on a string" once again comes to mind...
PermalinkPermalink 02-02-2007 @ 15:08
Comment from: blogless chuck [Visitor] Email
I hit the implode-o-meter every day. I found this and wondered if you were aware of it. "The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today approved the assumption of the insured deposits of Metropolitan Savings Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by Allegheny Valley Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Metropolitan Savings, with total assets of approximately $15.8 million at the end of the third quarter 2006, was closed today by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking, and the FDIC was named receiver. hat tip to Calculated Risk......http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/02/first-bank-failure-since-2004.html
one bank down.. thanks for the great job
PermalinkPermalink 02-03-2007 @ 23:30
Comment from: cm [Visitor]
This may not be the end of the debt bubble, but one of the first signs of cracks. (I'm not gloating, I'm in the "macroeconomic boat" with many others, and when things get rough, the boot may quite likely kick my butt too.)
PermalinkPermalink 02-04-2007 @ 01:45
Comment from: es1579 [Visitor] Email
Aaron -

Enjoyed the post, even though it gives chills down the spine. Would appreciate if you give us an update on this chart, say a month or two down the line. Given the recent rate of degradation, it might will be very interesting to see. Thanks again...
PermalinkPermalink 02-04-2007 @ 02:06
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
blogless chuck:

Yes, I saw it (it's actually one of the top news items on the Implode-O-Meter). I wish more details of the collapse were public... was it mortgage delinquency that took Allegheney down?

I suspect we'll be seeing more of this. Despite appearances, the banking system has been hanging by a thread for 15 years. Now the only "fundamentals" left are fees and penalties -- all the rest is directly or indirectly profit from the general credit bubble expansion. I don't see what "give" the central bank has to keep that thread from breaking this time.

cm:

I hear ya, friend. It's a crowded boat.

PermalinkPermalink 02-04-2007 @ 02:10
Comment from: Kevin [Visitor] · http://www.cryptogon.com
You guys might like my account of working inside the belly of the beast:

http://cryptogon.com/2006_09_03_blogarchive.html#115726846532246735

I used to work for one of the oldest and largest financial services companies in the world. But you wouldn't have known it from looking at the sign on the outside of the building. You see, the firm kept its name out of public view when it came to this business: the sub prime mortgage lending racket.

Why?

This Wall Street firm, spoken about in hushed tones around country clubs and cocktail parties, DOES NOT want to have its name associated with the financial services equivalent of a chop shop or a whore house. Oh no. It just wants the money associated with this despicable operation, and none of the press. Questions in the media about the propriety of these activities might cause discomfort for investors. Certain public appearances need to be maintained, after all.

This firm premeditated the exit from the crash unfolding before our eyes, both legally and in terms of public relations, years in advance.

Here's what it did....
PermalinkPermalink 02-05-2007 @ 04:23
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
Kevin:

Thanks for that insider's view. That is more or less what I had suspected.

By the way, regarding your post "Men Who Took Food in Trash Sentenced to Six Months in Jail" -- I think we're pretty close to throwing people in jail not meeting a "minimum income" already. That is roughly the effect of the growth in the corrections population from 2.5 to 7.5 million in the last 30 years; many times the rate of population growth.
PermalinkPermalink 02-05-2007 @ 09:16
Comment from: Kevin [Visitor] · http://www.cryptogon.com
Weird, I have waking nightmares about how the thing is going to come down... One of the scenarios I mentioned to my wife a few months ago, when I was thinking about the camps Halliburton has the contract to build, was a minimum income law. You know, "If you're not earning enough to support the Homeland, we've got some work for you to do in a Universal Service facility."
PermalinkPermalink 02-05-2007 @ 18:38
Comment from: JeffreyET [Visitor] Email · http://jetguitars.com
"Mortgage Industry" is certainly one among the many unrecognized oxymorons of our time...
PermalinkPermalink 02-06-2007 @ 07:40
Comment from: stu mann [Visitor] Email
This ties in well with the US$ remaining under 85 for the past year or so. Voodoo economics aside, the US$ is undervalued when compared to resource export countries like Canada, Australia, SA & NZ. But this is where the +10% returns can be made, same as the sub-prime credit market - two sides of the same coin, the 'coin' being generational economic conflict. It's the BabyBoomers vs. Gen X, the later being thrown to the wolves in this global NWO. That Baby Boom retirement income comes from withholding it from GenX. Marx's ghost lives on, but instead of class war its war between generations.

Look for the US$ to rally near 100 as sub-prime credit goes down.

K-wave predicts a stock market/credit blow out sometime around 2008. Cyclical generational economic conflict leads to credit contractions and this one will be huge because it's the end of New Deal entitlement culture. It can be argued the New Deal was the foundation of the 1980-2000 bull. With the Bush Admin's driving the final nail in the ND's coffin, look for an end to the midddle class's participation in finance.
PermalinkPermalink 02-06-2007 @ 15:41
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
stu:

I find much to agree with in your prognosis, but your call for a USD rally to 100 perplexes me. In fact I think the USD is in a short-term "sucker's rally" now.

If you believe sub-prime credit will continue to collapse, why do you think that will help the dollar? Domestic dollar holders will just go from securities to cash or other securities -- which is net neutral for the dollar's exchange value.

But foreigners will dump dollars in a significant way. Currently, the flow of dollars into the US by major foreign holders has rotated from US Treasuries to government agencies -- largely mortgage lending instruments. When the credit crunch hits these participants, I think if anything we're bound to see significant selling of these assets and dumping of the dollars that backed them. Many may just go to cash, so it won't necessarily be a "rush for the exits" in terms of the dollar -- but I certainly don't see them pouring more money into the US economy and buying more dollars.

It seems like you have the behavior of the exchange value of a currency in light of a domestic panic backwards. Am I missing something here?
PermalinkPermalink 02-06-2007 @ 20:42
Comment from: david_in_ct [Visitor] Email
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- HSBC Holdings Plc, Europe's biggest bank, said it's increasing loan-loss provisions for 2006 because mortgages to risky borrowers in the U.S. are going bad faster than the company expected only two months ago.

Provisions will be 20 percent higher than the $8.8 billion that analysts now estimate, London-based HSBC said in an e-mailed statement.

``It is clear that the level of loan-impairment provisions to be accounted for as at the end of 2006 in respect of Mortgage Services operations will be higher than is reflected in current market estimates,'' the bank said in the statement.

HSBC, the world's No. 3 bank by market value after New York- based Citigroup Inc. and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp., bought Household International Inc. for $15.5 billion in 2003. The purchase of the Prospect Heights, Illinois- based company, a lender to consumers with lower-than-average credit ratings, left HSBC more vulnerable a slowdown in house price growth.
PermalinkPermalink 02-07-2007 @ 19:07
Comment from: John M [Visitor] Email · http://housingdoom.com/
Hi Aaron,

You'll appreciate this article posted yesterday by The Economist. Among other things it uses approximately the same BBB chart as the one in your Feb 2nd post.

"Bleak houses: America's riskiest mortgages are set to pop. Where will the shrapnel land?"
PermalinkPermalink 02-16-2007 @ 10:40
Comment from: Brett Buchanan [Visitor] Email · http://thefundingshop.com
Aaron,

I recently came across lenderimplode.com and have been following it for about a month. I'm a 20 year mortgage industry veteran, weaned on traditional loan product and trained by one of the most conservative lenders in the industry, World Savings. While at World I learned what made a good borrower, and hence a worthy underlying security instrument for the ultimate mortgage investor – be it portfolio or secondary market.

I carried with me the lessons of sound underwriting and lending practices learned during my days at World and have applied those lessons throughout my career. The most important lesson - home ownership is a privilege, not a right, as the Sub-Prime lending industry would have you believe.

And I know of what I speak. You see, I left the ethical comfort of a career spent in A-Paper lending (15 years) and went to work for New Century as a Wholesale Account Executive in April of 2003. The money was just too good to pass up. Also, I entered into my employ with a naive belief that all brokers, or at least the majority of brokers, operated in good faith and upheld the ethical standards expected of them by their respective licensing authorities. However, while at New Century not only did I come to understand that the Sub-Prime lending industry brought with it very questionable product and lending practices, so had it brought a level of mortgage broker and loan officer all too willing to bend and even break the rules of ethical standards – i.e. commit fraud. I guess you can say with Sub-Prime lending comes fraud, plain and simple.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, HUD, responsible banks and thrifts, have all set lending standards that historically through a system of check and balance kept both borrower and housing market in check. Sub-Prime lenders ignored these standards and turned financially unworthy people who have not shown either the propensity to save, nor maintain good credit histories into homeowners.

In the good old days a borrower might have had to save 10% or 20% down payment which in turn meant having to stay within a housing price budget that mathematically did not exceed their down payment constraints. Enter the Sub-Prime lender and ultimately, the Stated Income 80/20 loan where not only did the borrower have no financial interest in the property, but quite often stretched the truth to even qualify for the loan itself. Home price negotiation went out the window and in many cases prices were inflated with money flowing back to agents and brokers without the knowledge of the lender. What the hell, the lender was taking on all the risk – literally. Not good lending.

Then there’s the issue of paying down principal, or of real wages versus housing costs. Don’t even get me started. I can go on for hours. In short, while Sub-Prime lenders have recently professed to perpetuate the American dream, for many people, they will cause its demise. If the housing market, as I believe it will, suffers a correction on a national scale the likes of which will see foreclosure rates at all time highs, the cause can and will be traced directly back to the unsound business practices of an industry segment run amuck and left unchecked.

It should be an interesting 2007...
PermalinkPermalink 02-16-2007 @ 23:00
Comment from: Brett Buchanan [Visitor] Email · http://thefundingshop.com
By the way, I resigned from New Century in January 2006 and started The Funding Shop. We focus on A-Paper and Alt-A product.
PermalinkPermalink 02-16-2007 @ 23:04
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
Brett,

Thanks a million for the experienced insider's take on the mortgage lending situation. Once again I see confirmation of the worst of my assumptions from a person in the know (sadly).

I have definitely noticed the ethical laxity you describe in action, especially from trolling the mortgage broker bulletin boards, and interacting with some mortgage finance professionals (some angry) who have seen ml-implode.

The industry is now almost totally infected with this "home ownership is a right" mindset. Any time someone (even an insider) points out the ethical questionability of some lending practice, someone else chimes in that they are "just helping to get people into homes".

Well, not really. They are helping people to get into debt -- all too often debt they can't really afford, and the home in that case will simply be pulled out from under them. The debt is the only certain thing!

And of course, by acting on this bogus justification, the lending community has made sound home ownership much less attainable by driving market prices up.

I should say that this all extends much farther than subprime. In fact, the very point you make in alluding to stated-income (liar) loans leads to much more. I was shocked to find out, for example, that 80% of FED's borrowers are stated-only, and unsurprisingly this has resulted in 70% of that company's "income" consisting of negative amortization. These people are all supposed to be "prime", but in essence they are delinquent.

So much for neatly classifying borrowers into "prime" and "subprime" piles. And I think you also realize that this all stands to get much worse as jobs are lost and wages continue to deteriorate, turning even more "prime" borrowers insolvent.

I have perhaps a slightly different macroscopic view of all this than you. Basically, I don't think the subprime or general mortgage lending industry has done anything distinctly unusual here: they've just participated in a financial bubble and acted out the time-honored role of unscrupulous, opportunistic facilitators. These types bloom like algae when a bubble has reached "mature" stage (when more people are participating than not), and in doing so do all of make the bubble larger, make the economy less stable, and turn more people into eventual victims.

Before the housing bubble, there was the tech stock bubble and all its sheisters, including Enron, Worldcom, and the whole complex of sell-side analysts (notably, including Jim Cramer). Before that, there was junk bonds and S&L. Even farther back, there was the 1920s stock bubble that ended in the Depression.

Same old same old. But this one is certainly the biggest.

I definitely agree 2007 will be "eventful".
PermalinkPermalink 02-16-2007 @ 23:34
Comment from: Glen [Visitor] Email
The whole subprime home ownership phenomenon is not just a product of the industry but a paradigm for all parties involved in the transaction based on this "right" to home ownership.

The industry may rationalize their intentions/actions but the financially unintelligent who utilize these loans are also to blame.

Home ownership is a result of financial status and renting is an insurance policy for those of us at the lower end of the spectrum.

When renting a person can budget a monthly payment and expect to pay that 99% of the time (depending on inclusion of utilities, etc.).

Home ownership comes with the financial accountability to suck up the disasters and problems that typically occur.....plugged toilet ($600 plumbing bill), broken sprinkler line ($300 extra water bill), roof repair ($$$), broken lawnmower ($200), etc.

Some people have no business being home owners as they don't have the financial resources to absorb the surprises. Its in their best interest (long-term which isn't fashionable of late).....and that of the economy.....for them to rent.

The subprime home ownership route is the worst of both worlds. No equity and no monthly payment insurance policy. The owners assume all the risks of home ownership but never reap any of the benefits (other than a roof over their heads and a nicer place than they can really afford....for awhile).

So we wait for the long-term implications that will result from the short-term mindset....
PermalinkPermalink 02-19-2007 @ 19:04
Comment from: Brett Buchanan [Visitor] Email · http://thefundingshop.com
Very well put Glenn. You are right on the money...

Aaron, you should see how the growth rate of the Sub-Prime lending industry tracks alongside with the run up in real estate values nationwide over the last 7 years (plus or minus). I would guess that they mirror each other.

Hindsight is 20-20 and without Sub-Prime product, we never would have seen such an unprecented rise in home values. I know - I was there...
PermalinkPermalink 02-19-2007 @ 20:48
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
Glen,

Great comments. I have now come to view this kind of marginal ownership as "renting from the bank". It's exactly as you say -- the worst of both worlds.

It is also interesting to revisit Greenspan's advocation of ARMs at ridiculous historical (in essence absolute) lows. Essentially, "The Maestro" was urging the least-savvy Americans to behave like hedge funds (leveraged speculators) with houses, complete with liquid holdings at levels that were dwarfed by the the value-at-risk, and at precisely the wrong time.
PermalinkPermalink 02-19-2007 @ 20:51
Comment from: Tom G. [Visitor] Email
Just discovered this site.

Great insights. Looking at housing prices in the Chicago area, especially at new, tear-down construction in blue-collar suburbs, I've observed that wages haven't gone up enough for us to all live in 675K houses. As other here observe, home ownership (and credit) are not rights, but are the product of productivity and frugality in some effective mix. (Lower productivity--you better be better at frugality.) Also, a lot of us are not self-reliant enough to deal with rudimentary home repairs, driving the cost of ownership up.

And, don't forget the Assessor -- he shares in your extravagance. The bigger, the nicer, the higher your taxes. Hopefully, the Assessor won't reprice my yard for the Bungalow-on-Steriods that could go on it instead of my 1200 sq ft.

I've gotten more frugal and debt free recently. What a liberating feeling !
PermalinkPermalink 02-21-2007 @ 10:15
Comment from: Joey Boom Boom [Visitor] Email
My economic history is bad, but didn't the S&L crisis in the 80's precipitate the recession that followed. This housing debacle dwarfs any other speculative bubble that I can think of in terms of percentage participation. Coupled with an aging demographic that does not save like previous generations and Johnny could be a greeter at Walmart for the rest of his life and pass off bills to his heirs.
PermalinkPermalink 03-15-2007 @ 16:31
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
Joey,

Yeah; and it was really the culmination of bank failures that spanned the entire 80s.

Sadly the systemic problems were never fixed: in response to the 90/91 recession, reserve requirements were lowered even more, the prime spread was raised (i.e. allowing banks to charge credit card holders more) and of course the worst of the S&Ls were bailed out.

By 1995 all the usual signs suggested we were heading into another recession, but that's when the ZIRP was initiated along with Rubin's "strong dollar" policy (anomolously high interest rates), flooding the US with capital from around the world. So as far as the usual metrics, that recession was averted, but only by sending us into a gigantic financial economy bubble that we're still coming down off of.

Besides that, without all the bubble stuff, we've been in recession since the early 90s. It's one long, drawn-out collapse.
PermalinkPermalink 03-15-2007 @ 23:03
[...] urchinTracker ('/outgoing/http_www_autodogmatic_com_index_php_sst_2007_02_02_p438_more438');" href="http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/p438#more438" target="_blank"> http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/p438#more438] [...]
PermalinkPermalink 03-28-2007 @ 22:51
[...] urchinTracker ('/outgoing/http_www_autodogmatic_com_index_php_sst_2007_02_02_p438_more438');" href="http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/p438#more438" target="_blank"> subprime lending collapse and a bursting housing bubble which [...]
PermalinkPermalink 03-29-2007 @ 08:27
Comment from: Credit derivative [Visitor] Email · http://cdsaxiom.com
Do you have any other articles or info on credit derivatives pricing or trading? I found some interesting information on the following sites:

http://www.cdscawley.com


http://cdsaxiom.com
PermalinkPermalink 04-24-2007 @ 11:39
Comment from: Sinjin Williams [Visitor] Email
Do you have any other articles or info on credit derivatives pricing or trading? Been looking to find out more info on the player in the market... I've some interesting information on the following sites:
http://www.cdscawley.com
http://cdsaxiom.com

Know where I can find any additional info on the other players?
PermalinkPermalink 05-02-2007 @ 09:57
Comment from: Rebecca [Visitor] Email
What do you think about the Feds proposed regulations this Tuesday? It seems that no one will be happy either way. Democrats are worried that this will be a way for business groups to head off tougher proposals by Decocrats, and many Reupubs dislike the new regulations arguing that regulations cannot keep up with the natural economy. Yet others think that this will just reduce credit available to homebuyers.. What do you think?

Oh, who's to blame? The Fed? George W? Greenspan? I don't know, do you?
PermalinkPermalink 12-20-2007 @ 01:57

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Misc
Search
Blog Stats
  • This blog has 157 posts and 648 comments spanning a range from 08-22-2006 to 05-14-2008
Who's Online?
  • Guest Users: 48

powered by
b2evolution

Support these bloggers: