Oct. 26, 2008
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Wall Street's Shadow Market
Steve Kroft looks at some of the arcane Wall Street financial instruments that have magnified the economic crisis.
-
Video
Derivatives
07/23/95: Steve Kroft investigates what stock derivatives are and the dangers they pose to investors.
-
Video
Credit Default Swaps
Steve Kroft examines the complicated financial instruments known as credit default swaps and the central role they are playing in the unfolding economic crisis.
-
Photo
(iStockphoto)
-
Interactive
Eye On The Economy
In-depth features on U.S. markets, taxes, employment and the Federal Reserve.
"If you can and you could lay down cents on the dollar to place a bet on the solvency of Wall Street, for example, as some did, when Wall Street became evidently insolvent, that cents on the dollar bet went up 30, 40, and 50 fold. Not everyone who did that wants to get his name in the paper. But there are some spectacularly rich people who came out of this," Grant says.
"Who got richer," Kroft remarks.
"Who got richer, who became, you know, fantastically richer," Grant says.
A lot of them were hedge fund managers. John Paulson's Credit Opportunities Fund returned almost 600 percent last year, with Paulson pocketing a reported $3.7 billion.
Bill Ackman, of Pershing Square Capital Management, said he plans to make hundreds of millions. Both declined 60 Minutes' request for an interview.
Congress now seems shocked and outraged by the consequences of its decision eight years ago to effectively deregulate swaps and derivatives. Various members of the House and Senate have hauled in the usual suspects to accept or share the blame.
"Were you wrong?" Rep. Henry Waxman asked former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan.
"Credit default swaps, I think, have some serious problems with them," Greenspan replied.
It appears to be the first step in a long process of restoring at least some of the regulations and safeguards that might have prevented, or at least mitigated this disaster after the damage has already been done.
Where do we go from here?
"We need the most dramatic rethinking of the regulatory scheme for financial markets since the New Deal. If anything has demonstrated that imperative, it's the economy right now and the tragic circumstances we're in," Goldschmid says.
Asked how much danger he thinks is still out there, Goldschmid says, "We don't know. Part of the problem of the lack of transparency in these - in these markets has been we don't really know."
Produced by L. Franklin Devine and Jennifer MacDonald
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left
Scroll Right


- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 216 CommentsThe companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on Dec. 15th, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.
Biden''s son is "consultant" with banks, at age 28 ! getting millions.
This world problem as been caused by these greedy Democrats.
The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on Dec. 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]
The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on Dec. 15th, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.
Given the above-stated chronology, it would appear that the House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000, following George W Bush''s (first) election (in November of 2000), while then-President Clinton was serving out his final days as President. The bill was never debated by the House or Senate. The bill by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. In substance, it appears that the leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate and House incorporated the deregulation of credit default swaps into an omnibus budget bill (without hearings or recorded votes)at a time when the outgoing president was in no position to veto anything.
DERVITIVES, DEREGULATED in the Commodities Modernization Act (2000) are the house of cards.
The derivatives market is estimated at $60 trillion--banks don''t make cheap bets!
One has to answer no. The CRA was made to make mortgages available to lower income earners, but there was absolutely no requirement to structure them as adjustable rate, interest only, or other shady loan shark type deals, and no requirement to steer people who qualified for normal loans to these shadier loans because of the higher fees made by the agents.
It also did not force these shady loans to be bundled into CDOs and CDOs squared, nor did it force real estate developers to build McMansions only, while neglecting to build affordable housing.
Remember it wasn''t the default of the loans that caused credit to freeze, it was the fact that none of the institutions had the money to back up losing bets worth thousands of times more than the mortgages that were bet upon.
Go back to the real root, if you are going at all, the decimation of the middle class as the result of Reagan''s trickle down economics, created the situation where there were no longer enough middle class borrowers to sustain the industry.
The following day, the Dow quickly lost ~500 points. I hope he took a great deal of *** for leaving an impression that a HUGE and totally unexplained time-bomb was yet awaiting investors.
Tonight''s report made up a bit for leaving that gaping hole unexplained. But he neither acknowledged his error nor evidenced any embarrassment.
But tonight''s report still struck me as stilted, an attempt to characterize CDSs simply as "illegal betting". That''s an easy critique, but short-sighted in my view.
To be sure, CDSs were contracts (OK, "bets") that were bought and sold with alacrity on Wall Street, accompnaying the mortgage-backed securities Wall Street firms were peddling. But there%u2019s betting undertaken daily in virtually every market I can think of - the NYSE, Nasdaq, CBOE, NYMEX, etc.
The criticism that these bettors didn''t own any of the mortgages against which the CDSs were written is an off-base criticism, too. Put and call options are bought and sold daily without a requirement to own the underlying security. So too with commodity markets, such as oil.
Maybe Mr. Kroft should sit in on some Finance classes at the Stern School or Columbia It just might serve the nation.
The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on Dec. 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]
The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on Dec. 15th, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.
Given the above-stated chronology, it would appear that the House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000, following George W Bush''s (first) election (in November of 2000), while then-President Clinton was serving out his final days as President. The bill was never debated by the House or Senate. The bill by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. In substance, it appears that the leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate and House incorporated the deregulation of credit default swaps into an omnibus budget bill (without hearings or recorded votes)at a time when the outgoing president was in no position to veto anything.
He wasn''t wrong, the value of the defaulted mortgages so far is estimated at close to a trillion, subject to change as more and more people are laid off from jobs.
The 56 trillion (actually twice the entire world''s annual GDP) is the estimate of all the "side bets" that these banks and other financial services firms around the world placed upon the paper based on these mortgages, without actually having the money to pay their bets.
As far as legality, at one time slavery was legal, and many people practices it, that did not make it right, as was Nazi-ism, genocide of "Native Americans" and other such anti human activities.
Wall Street deserves to collapse, as it is built on a similar house of cards, rated by agencies paid by the companies they rate, with it''s member firms cooked books, and other corruptions, it is a wonder any idiot still puts money in the hands of those thieves.
What sent that signal? So many people buying homes. Why was that happening? The federal reserve was fixing interest rates very low, it was creating money hand over fist. This mislead people into thinking that housing would only increase in value, that they were betting on sure thing.
It wasn''t with just credit default swaps either. It was with builders, banks, businesses, and so on. Millions of people who never heard of credit-default-swaps saw the market the same wrong way. All got the wrong idea about the market conditions. How did that just happen? It was because of conditions created by federal reserve policy.
Then there is this nonsense about Greenspan being libertarian. Libertarians don''t believe in central banks and fiat money. They see them as Jefferson did, a threat to liberty. No libertarian can be employed by the Fed, let alone be its chairman. Greenspan stopped being a libertarian somewhere after his essay on gold in the 60s and before he took a job at the fed.
Another very basic principle of contract law is there must be consideration paid for an agreement. As far as I can tell in what I have been able to find out about the credit default swaps, no money ever changed hands. If there was no consideration paid for the swaps, there can be no penalty for default because there is in fact no contract.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there is an argument to be made that not only is this a house of cards, it has been built in the air and if it falls down, no one is the loser.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081019/48fab0c0_3ca6_1552620081019-1896452256
All the baloney about being "forced to make loans to poor people" does not jibe. How does a senator or congressman "force" a bank to make illegal loans in violation of their fiduciary responsibility? And if the loans are being "forced" on the lenders why would Fannie and Freddie pay lobbyists to stop the reform bill? That bill was their redemption. It doesn''t make sense. If I am being forced to do something I don''t really want to.. and there is help on the way why would I work against the help? Why doesn''t anyone mention Bush''s housing initiative to put even more low income families into homes? The initiative is outlined on the white house web site.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081019/48fab0c0_3ca6_1552620081019-1896452256
All the baloney about being "forced to make loans to poor people" does not jibe. How does a senator or congressman "force" a bank to make illegal loans in violation of their fiduciary responsibility? And if the loans are being "forced" on the lenders why would Fannie and Freddie pay lobbyists to stop the reform bill? That bill was their redemption. It doesn''t make sense. If I am being forced to do something I don''t really want to.. and there is help on the way why would I work against the help? Why doesn''t anyone mention Bush''s housing initiative to put even more low income families into homes? The initiative is outlined on the white house web site.
Keep up the fantastic work!
Andrew Humphrey
Detroit, MI
http://www.andrewhumphrey.com
What a hypocritical way of doing politics!
60 Minutes, where was your stellar reporting when all this was going down in 2000? Is there anyone with foresight in the world anymore?? You certainly found out the facts about this happening back in the early 1900''s NOW - a little late I might add; how come nobody brought these facts to light in 2000 when CLINTON allowed this?
That would be George W. Bush and a republican Congress. And if I remember correctly, deregulation became all the rage under the Great Reagan God.
For some reason, I''m finding it hard to feel sorry for you.
Screw the government.
Let''s blame the R''s no its the D''s... Folks, does it really matter? What is of more interest is that out of this misery for most of us a few are getting a huge payoff. Doesn''t seem to me be to be a better arguement for taxing individuals with incomes over $250K and keeping the capital gains tax as is (maybe even raising it to 100% for cases of "ill-gotten" gains).
Today you told us about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and how it helped destroy our economy.Would it not be useful to tell us who pushed this bill through at the last minute? Is Phil Gramm a close friend of the staff?
Title III: Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements - Amends the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 respecting swap agreements.
Title IV: Regulatory Responsibility for Bank Products - Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000 - Excludes specified banking products and swap agreements from Commodity Futures Exchange Commission coverage.
----
It began with the Community Reinvestment Act.
A Liberal Social Engineering policy forced upon business by government.
Isn''t the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES supposed to be at the wheel? I loved it when he stood before a press conference and said..."well....let''s see if this stimulus works first!" All I say is HA HA HA!...Maybe he should have been reading that professor''s book and taking notes or....perhaps listening to the folks that know a great deal more than he will ever know!...GO BACK TO BASEBALL GEORGE!
I am one of those lucky folks...almost like winning the lottery for LOSERS! I have a house that is worth less than the mortgage! HA...The jokes on me! Why you so ask, I didn''t know that CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS even existed...Had I, I probably wouldn''t know anymore than our president!
Do the math. $1 trillion we are giving to financial institutions would more than cover the 7% of mortgages in trouble.
If there were not DEREGULATED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, there would not be financial meltdown ($60 trillion).
The lobbyists got this through. The lobbyists from Lehman, Bear and the rest of them. The Congressmen/Senators took the honey and closed an eye to the dangers. OR, they were all lawyers and just stupid on economics.
This was a bipartisan effort and needs to be rewarded as such.
House: Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL, Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA).
Senate: Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Note that Gramm and Bliley were also part of the 1999 Gramm/Leahy/Bliley Act that also DERGULATED financial institutions and removed protections (REGULATIONS) from the Glass/Steagall Act of 1934.
And Phil Gramm called us a bunch of whiners!
As Steve Croft noted, the vote took place in a Republican Congress, just before the session ended, and ushered in George W. Bush''s next 8 years at the till. I say we should vote for 4 more years of the same-NOT.
Hate to tell you but Sen R. Lugar was the primary sponsorer. Gramm was a co-sponsor. There is blame to go around for the Dems and the Rep''s, after all Bill Clinton signed the legislation.
Q? Who is sponsoring the next bit of legislation that puts the regs back in force in order to prevent more bad behavior?
This message is for all the YOUNG people out there! Let this be a LESSON for you and that you will experience the consequences of, during your lifetime as you will have to repay this back!
Furthermore, when you take an active role in the election process remember this example of POOR LEADERSHIP when and if you do vote! I say vote the BUMS out!...and they can host their own cocktail parties in their backyards when they are looking for something to do! Where were YOU are mighty leaders in CONGRESS??? If the job is too tough, find another!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 216 Comments