Subprime Mess: It's Not Derivatives' Fault
I'm sure it's been happening a lot in idle conversation, but it's still disheartening to see it happening in on the front page of a WSJ section: confusing illiquidity problems in the subprime market with more theoretical worries about derivatives. Here's Scott Patterson, who should know better, in his Ahead of the Tape column:
The subprime-mortgage crackup is casting a bright light on an often dark corner of Wall Street: derivatives...
A rising concern is that many derivatives are "illiquid," or don't trade very often, making it hard to value them accurately. This can pose a problem for hedge funds, which generally need to place a value on their holdings every few months or so...
A recent study by Paris risk-management firm Riskdata shows that roughly 30% of hedge funds that invest in illiquid securities smooth out returns with price estimates for these securities that are potentially self-serving, compared with just 3% for funds that invest in highly liquid securities such as stocks.
There is no indication whatsoever here that Patterson understands that the illiquid securities which are causing so much trouble in the "subprime-mortgage crackup" aren't derivatives. And in fact I'd take issue with his contention that "many derivatives are illiquid". I'm sure that some derivatives are illiquid, but as a general rule they don't even come close to the illiquidity endemic in, say, the CDO market.
CDOs are securities – not derivatives – which are very, very rarely traded. As a result, they're often "marked to model" rather than being marked to market. That seems to be the problem that Patterson's column is concerned about, and it's silly for him to be complaining about derivatives in this regard.
It's true that the troubled Bear Stearns funds did invest in some derivatives – mainly bets on the direction of the ABX.HE index of subprime bonds. Those investments rose and fell in value very transparently, and were by far the easiest part of the Bear portfolio to unwind.
So let's not start blaming illiquid derivatives for Bear Stearns' problems. Right now, illiquid derivatives are the least of anybody's problems.
- TIPS Strips, Redux
- Nov 20 2008 11:57AM EST
- Can GMAC Save GM?
- Nov 20 2008 11:42AM EST
- Ugly
- Nov 20 2008 10:06AM EST
- Zimbabwe Datapoint of the Day
- Nov 19 2008 8:54PM EST
- Extra Credit, Wednesday Edition
- Nov 19 2008 5:51PM EST
- Will Berkshire Lose its Triple-A?
- Nov 19 2008 2:52PM EST
- Citi: From Bad to Worse
- Nov 19 2008 1:18PM EST
- Yet More Paulson Revisionism
- Nov 19 2008 12:29PM EST
- Investing in Africa and Ecuador
- Nov 19 2008 11:06AM EST
- Blogonomics: Conflicts of Interest
- Nov 19 2008 9:57AM EST
- The Return of the $70 Per Hour Meme
- Nov 18 2008 10:49PM EST
- Extra Credit, Tuesday Edition
- Nov 18 2008 4:45PM EST
- Yes, Fund Managers Really Do Underperform
- Nov 18 2008 3:42PM EST
- The Deteriorating Bond Market
- Nov 18 2008 3:00PM EST
- Watches: Don't Trust the Auctions
- Nov 18 2008 12:26PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










