Nate,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, Goldman has presented profits, but they're the only one, and there's lots of questions about those gains. Lunch with Bernanke and the PPT? I don't know which firms would have written down losses to zero, but they're not the Wall Street ones, other than what we have reported here.

HSBC is the only one that put $45 billion in SIV waste on the balance sheet, de facto writing down everything to zero. For all others it's obvious they're trying to hide most for now.

Which may not be that crazy: If Citi would write down its $83 billion SIVs in one fell swoop, the market could panic. (There's also the fact that Citi can't afford to put it where the light shines). Still, writing it down in steps doesn't make it a healthy company. SIVs are but a small part of Citi's trouble.

What you mean by "the finance part of this is nearing an end", once more I don't know; far as I can see it's all finance, and at the very least hundreds of billions of losses remain to be swallowed.

As for the notion that there's not much leverage involved in "these securities", maybe I don't understand what you mean. The whole game is about leverage, every mortgage, and every other available asset, has been used to borrow money against. That's why we have derivatives and securities: offload the loan from your books, so you can use it as collateral for the next.

The Norwegians, as we said here last week, are a prime example. They had $80 million, and invested 8 times that, all leverage, and all lost. And I don't think for a second that they're an exception; if anything, they're more prudent than most others. They were simply the last-to-come Ponzi suckers. I predict these people will be held up as an example soon of the honorable way to deal with the fallout.

As I said in the intro, bond insurer Ambac carries $620 billion in structured paper, with $9 billion in cash. That's leverage. Citi supposedly has $2.2 trillion in assets, with, as Mike Shedlock said, $127 billion in equity (much of which is doubtful). It's not all 100-1, but do you really believe that in this increasingly fractional theater, LTCM was some kind of weird abberation?

The very fact that the BIS confirms $516 trillion in derivatives outstanding, growing at a rate of 24% per year, tells me differently. If just 20% of that is found to be less than AAA perfect, Wall Street and Threadneedle are endangered species.

This is not just another downtrend, or some sort of cyclical move. This could become Weimar, where cigarettes were currency, because money had no value anymore. Only, this time it won't be through inflation. In that respect, Shedlock agrees with Stoneleigh and me.

@ilargi
If not inflation, then... deflation? How does money lose value under deflation? Seems to me it gains value in that case.

The BIS statistics are available here
http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm
(see Table 19 "amounts outstanding of OTC derivatives...")
and they do list $516 trillion in "notional amounts outstanding" but the "gross market value" is only $11 trillion. I don't know how they value the derivatives, but this seems to indicate the $516T figure exaggerates the threat.

Also, the derivatives are in various areas, only notional $42T are in credit default swaps (of the $516T). The majority is in interest rate contracts of $347T, the rest in forex, commodity, and equity contracts.

they do list $516 trillion in "notional amounts outstanding" but the "gross market value" is only $11 trillion. I don't know how they value the derivatives, but this seems to indicate the $516T figure exaggerates the threat.

I think it's the other way around. And obviously the keyword, once more, is leverage. If it's true that underlying value is just $11 trillion, while outstanding derivatives total $516 trillion (don't forget the 24% growth rate, that's even scarier than the total number), then every dollar of "real" value has been used to issue almost $50 dollars of credit. And every year $12 more borrowed dollars are added to that credit. The total outstanding will be $640 trillion a year from now if the rate remains the same..

If that doesn't scare you, you're a brave man. It might, however, simply mean that a 2.1% overall market loss can wipe out all underlying equity. I know that's a theoretical approach, since some assets have more strength than others, but if enough fails up at the same time, it's not an impossible option.

But for sure if, say, 20% of derivatives blow up, you have a potential $100 trillion problem. New home prices in the US fell 13% this year, nudge nudge wink wink.