From a banker friend of mine. It all makes sense to me now.

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers – most of whom are unemployed alcoholics – 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 and soon she has the largest sale volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers’ freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistence when she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral. At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on security markets worldwide. Niave investors don’t really understand the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.Nevertheless, their prices continuously climb, and the securities become the top-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses who collect enormous fees on their sales, pay extravagant bonuses to their sales force, and who in turn purchase exotic sports cars and multimillion dollar condominiums.
One day, although the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the bank (subsequently fired due his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar. Heidi demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed they they cannot pay back their drinking debts.

Therefore, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy. DRINKBOND and ALKIBOND drop in price by 90 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %. The decreased bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans.
The suppliers of Heidi’s bar, having granted her generous payment extentions and having invested in the securities are faced with writing off her debt and losing over 80% on her bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 50 workers. The bank and brokerage houses are saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock negotiations by leaders from both political parties. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by a tax levied on employed middle-class non-drinkers.

0 Responses

  1. It’s a good explanation, from my skim through. The only thing I would add, for the American version, is that the government actually not only encouraged such behaviors, but in fact set up their own bars to cater exclusively to people who were already known to have no possible means of paying for the drinks, but had a right to have drinks anyway. These bars were called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    If you want a real irony, one of the chief people responsible for not only bringing them into being but preventing several attempts to put restrictions on them, was Barney Frank. Who is now heading up the committee that’s overseeing the “fixing” of the situation.