Wie sicher sind Einlagensicherungs-Fonds wie FDIC?

Das Problem dabei: Offiziell haftet der Staat nicht für einen Ausfall von Fannie und Freddie. Allerdings gehen Investoren und Wissenschaft davon aus, dass es eine solche Garantie aber doch gibt. Die Wissenschaft begründet das einmal mit dem "Too big to fail"-Argument. Das besagt, dass der Staat helfen muss, da die Konsequenzen einer Pleite zu gravierend wären. Zum anderen verweisen Rechtsexperten auf die zahlreichen staatlichen Privilegien, die Fannie und Freddie genießen, den starken staatlichen Einfluss. So darf der amerikanische Präsident fünf Verwaltungsratsmitglieder ernennen und jederzeit wieder abberufen.

Den Wert dieser implizierten Ausfallgarantie beziffert Wayne Passmore, Volkswirt bei der US-Notenbank, auf 150 Mrd. $.

Wie sind Fannie und Freddie von der Kreditkrise betroffen?

Beide Unternehmen mussten aufgrund der Immobilien- und Kreditkrise heftige Wertberichtigungen vornehmen. Das liegt darin, dass sich aufgrund sinkender Hauspreise die Ausfälle bei Hypothekarkrediten häufen. Von deren Rückzahlung sind Fannie und Freddie aber abhängig. Die Probleme spiegeln die jüngsten Ergebnisse wieder.

Die im Mai für das erste Quartal veröffentlichten Zahlen von Fannie Mae fielen enttäuschend aus: Demnach verzeichnete das Unternehmen im vierten Quartal einen Verlust von 3,6 Mrd. $. Das gesamte Kreditportfolio verlor im Jahr 2007 rund 13,4 Mrd. $ an Wert. Um ihre Kapitalbasis zu stärken und die Eigenkapitalstandards einzuhalten, haben Fannie und Freddie über die Ausgabe von neuen Aktien bereits 13 Mrd. $ frisches Kapital eingesammelt.


www.financial-times.de/unternehmen/...tleister/324008.html?p=2

"gleichzeitig" aus. Das ist der dünne Faden, an dem die Hoffnung hängt. ;-)

Das "gleichzeitig" ist jedoch nur ein Hoffnungsträger, wenn die Hypothekenbanken weiter arbeiten können. Denn nach den Bilanzierungsregeln, müsste man die Hypothekenbanken schließen. Damit begann auch die Diskussion in den USA, die sich nun verselbständigt hat. ;-)  

....das us-finanzsystem überlebt diese katastrophe?

oder ist hier jemand in der lage auf diese gewissheit zu verzichten und in einer unentwegten faszination zu leben?

das steht für mich ausser Frage. Die Frage ist lediglich wie lange es dauern wird.

Und Malko. Die Hauspreise sind ein ganz entscheidender Faktor. Sie bstimmen die Höhe der Ausfälle!!!

wobei ich das zu wenig finde.

"Wenn schon Fannie und Freddie gefährdet sind, kann sich niemand mehr absolut sicher sein", warnt Paul Miller von der Investmentfirma Friedman, Billings, Ramsey. Die Firmen haben im Zuge der Immobilienkrise schon mehr als elf Mrd. Dollar Verlust angehäuft und sind händeringend auf Kapitalsuche. Lehman Brothers hatte zu Wochenbeginn mit einer Studie geschockt, wonach die beiden Hypothekenbanken im schlimmsten Falle 75 Mrd. Dollar an frischem Kapital benötigen könnten. Zwar halten zahlreiche Analysten die Prognosen für allzu schwarz gefärbt. Die Gefahr einer drohenden Überschuldung von Fannie Mae und Freddie Mac teilen aber einige. Dabei ist an der Wall Street Mehrheitsmeinung, dass beide Firmen im Notfall von der US-Regierung gerettet würden. Die Anteilseigner könnten dabei allerdings leer ausgehen, warnt Josh Rosner von der New Yorker Investmentfirma Graham Fisher & Co.

www.wiwo.de/handelsblatt/verheerende-signale-300066/

....für nächste woche einen kursverfall von dax und dow von mindestens 1000 punkten.

die börse, das neue mekka der goldsucher, ein gewaltiges versprechen was sich in ein unerfüllbares wandeln wird. nur das herz, ungerührt wie kristall, erhält die glitzernde quelle.

ICH steh jedenfalls bei meinen Banken - Commerzbank, Postbank, APO-Bank und DAB - am MONTAG - Morgen auf der Matte und fordere unverzüglich meine Einlagen in bar heraus !!!

:))

Hauspreisen, trotzdem einige Anmerkungen. Wenn man sieht wie verrückt sie die letzten Jahre angestiegen sind besteht noch reichlich Luft nach unten. Trotzdem wird der Verfall zum stehen kommen. Ich rechne damit spätestens in 2009.  

....ich bin dabei. vorher sollten wir aber noch einen call auf continental kaufen. und mit den paar piepen die wir da machen, machen wir dann so ne richtige sause.

Warum soll den DAX mindestens 1000 Punkte verfallen?
Droht die DAX-Firmen die Pleite?

Ich habe da eben schon sofort bei Commerzbank, APO-Bank, Postbank und DAB angerufen...aber die verschanzen sich, diese ...

Von wegen "Sie rufen außerhalb unserer Geschäftszeiten an.....".

...Faule Ausrede...die Banken haben keine Knete mehr...  !!!

:))

....pleite ist ein grosses wort, ich würde mal so formulieren: etwas ist fertig und lässt sich nicht wieder gut machen oder vielleicht so: die dax-firmen werden für einen übelriechenden abseß gehalten, den niemand anfassen will

...bist du bereit für eine revolution?

...hast du auch die sehnsucht nach einer geburt einer grossen figur?

...wollen wir die banken für ihre unersättlichkeit bestrafen?

...bis wir in den kalklamellen einer austerschale endlich zur ruhe kommen?

....bis gestern hatte ich einen call auf conti. gestern letzter börsenhandelstag. basispreis 85. heute kommt das übernahmeangebot. so eine scheisse.

...im bannkreis des menschlichen scheiterns.

....da hätte ich aus 100 euro, mal soeben 15000 machen können.

das, was die meisten Leute momentan umtreibt der Fakt, inwieweit die Sicherungseinrichtungen bei einer allgemeinen Krise der Kreditwirtschaft greifen oder evtl. auch nicht! Was passiert also, wenn ein Bankenzusammenbruch einen Sicherungsfonds überfordert oder gar das Bankensystem als solches in seinem Bestand gefährdet ist? Wie wir aktuell in den USA sehen, wird es dann Sache der Regierung bzw. des Gesetzgebers, wie mit dem wirtschafts- und finanzpolitischen Instrumentarium einem "too big to fail-Fall" begegnet wird.
Aber die Folgen dieses Handelns bleiben unkalkulierbar.

Geld wirklich gut anlegen ist in diesen Zeiten schon eine Kunst. Die Zinsen sind sprichwörtlich im Keller und höhere Renditen erzielt man nur, wenn man bereit sind, höhere Risiken einzugehen. Viele scheuen sich aber verständlicherweise davor.

....keine sicherungseinrichtung geschaffen für so einen fall, es gibt auch keins.

aber die fehler liegen im vorfeld. kostolany hat schon die derivate als massenvernichtungswaffen des finanzsystems bezeichnet.

die einlagensicherungsfonds sind in erster linie instrumente des vertrauens und können einzelnen fehlentwicklungen entgegen wirken. aber für ein systemkollaps waren sie nie gedacht.

Das Finanzsystem wird natürlich überleben, jede Krise kann gemeistert werden, da das System höchst flexibel ist, und im Notfall das staatliche Netz greifen wird.
Man kann wenn man will Parallelen zur japanischen Krise ziehen, allerdings wiederholt sich Geschichte nicht einfach...

....die rettungsaktionen wirken so, als würde ich badeschaum an die wand nageln. Kein zerfall der nicht in eine andere ordnung übergeht. wie sind die prognosen für die neue ordnung? japan hat sich doch seit seiner immokrise nie wieder richtig erholt.

...du bist doch continentalianer? wie hoch ist eigentlich der übernahmepreis für conti?

na hoch hoffe ich doch mal. Mal schauen was die Börse macht am Montag. Durchschnittskurs der letzten 30Tage vorm Angebot +20% würde mich sehr glücklich machen.^^

Nimbus, StephanG, schaut mal hier:
www.clusterstock.com/2008/7/...eholders-screwed-no-matter-what
www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/...uble-us-public-debt/3700

Die Aussage, dass sich die US-Staatsschulden durch Übernahme der Fannie/Freddie-Garantien verdoppeln, stammt - WÖRTLICH - aus der NEW YORK TIMES (zitiert im 2. Artikel unten). Vielleicht sollte Ihr Euch mal mit einem empörten Leserbrief an die dortige Wirtschafts-Redaktion wenden ; -))

---

Fannie (FNM), Freddie (FRE) Bailout Options: Shareholders Screwed No Matter What (FNM, FRE)
Henry Blodget | Jul 11, 08 7:03 AM

fanfred.jpgFannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) won't be allowed to fail, and Bush Administration officials are discussing ways to make sure they won't. But none of the options look good for shareholders. The stockholders' only hope at this point is that the Fannie / Freddie collapse is just a market panic and that the two companies are adequately capitalized. This seems unlikely.

Two specific bailout options under consideration (per the NYT) are:

   * Government takeover. The companies would be put in a "conservatorship" and run by their regulator (OFHEO). In this scenario, the stocks of FNM and FRE would be "worth little or nothing," says the NYT. Also, any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee would be paid by taxpayers.

   * Explicit guarantee of the $5 trillion of mortgages owned or guaranteed by FNM and FRE. This would set a new standard for the word "bailout." It would also basically double the size of the US's public debt. FNM and FRE could conceivably do relatively well in this scenario, but it's unlikely that the government would allow them to do so. Given the backlash the Fed and Treasury were hit with after "bailing out" Bear Stearns at $2/share, it's unlikely FNM and FRE shareholders would get much.

Other possibilities that are likely to be considered (from this WSJ overview):

   * Fed buys portion of FRE/FNM debt or mortgage-backed securities. This would reduce their leverage and bolster their capital ratios. Again, in theory, stock investors could be okay, but we suspect the Fed would only agree to do this on the condition that shareholders got hammered (as with Bear Stearns.)

   * Fed could make huge, long-term loans to the companies. Again, in theory, stock investors could do okay. But optics are important, so they most likely won't.

   * Treasury buys FNM and FRE stock. This is a partial version of the takeover scenario above: The government just makes a massive equity infusion to shore up capital. This would lead to major dilution of current shareholders, but likely not a total wipeout.

   * Equity investment by private investors. It's still possible that Fannie and Freddie could survive without a government lifeline. This would be the best option for current shareholders, but they would still get socked by dilution. Given the amount of capital needed and the panic around these companies, it's also unlikely that they would be able to raise the money quickly and without the dilution being severe.

The only scenario in which FNM and FRE investors don't get further bludgeoned, in other words, is the "just a temporary market panic" scenario. In this scenario, FNM and FRE's insistence that they have plenty of capital is not a hallucination, the market realizes its error, and the stocks skyrocket. Investors who take this view include Bill Miller, the once-legendary Legg Mason fund manager who has been buying FRE all the way down.

---

Fannie and Freddie Bailout Would Double US Public Debt
Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:20pm CDT •

This one will take a while to digest.

According to The New York Times, aside from the genius plan of placing stricken mortgage lenders Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac under conservatorship and guaranteeing with taxpayers money the companies’ massive losses, Bush administration officials “considered calling for legislation that would offer an explicit government guarantee on the $5 trillion of debt owned or guaranteed by the companies.”

This, however, says the Times is “a far less attractive option” because “it would effectively double the size of the public debt.”

Double the size of the public debt! By bailing out two companies that engaged in irresponsible lending! Could the Times not have any stronger language to describe this other then “less attractive”? How about “completley freakin’ insane”?

Yesterday, Dan Denning discussed the ‘doomsday scenario’ of the US government having to bailout Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE).

Dan says Fannie and Freddie are already technically insolvent. But if Congress decides to fully guarantee Fannie and Freddie debt, it could pop the market for U.S. Treasury bonds.

   Fannie and Freddie —are surely doomed now. First, U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress both are well capitalized. Haven’t we heard this one before?

   Isn’t this what Bear Stearns said before it collapsed? Didn’t Citigroup (C) say it was well capitalised, and then ask for more money? Why would anyone believe these investment bankers anymore when they tell the public they are well capitalised? It’s almost like the moment a CEO of a company says it’s “well capitalised” you should be prepared for a nasty shock.

   We don’t mean to alarmist about the GSEs. But as we explained to a colleague over the weekend, our job here at the Old Hat Factory is not to tell you what you may already know, or can read in the papers. Our job is to tell you about the low-probability but high magnitude investment events that could affect your money. And just to be clear, the collapse of Bear Stearns and the whole credit crisis would look like mere child’s play should a genuine crisis unfold in the quality of the debt owned and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

   It would be the equivalent of that absurd scenario in that global warming movie a few years ago, where the Gulf Stream stops flowing and the entire Northern hemisphere enters a new ice age…in a matter of days. The insolvency of the GSEs is as close as you’re ever going to want to get to Financial Doomsday and live to tell about it.

   Yet just yesterday Former Fed Governor William Poole told the world what many have been saying for awhile now: if you use conventional accounting methods, Fannie and Freddie are already technically insolvent. Poole said, “Congress ought to recognize that these firms are insolvent, that it is allowing these firms to continue to exist as bastions of privilege, financed by the taxpayer”.

   In simple terms, Poole points out that Freddie Mac owes US$5.2 billion more than its assets are currently worth. Shareholders took note.  Fannie shares fell 14% in New York trading while sister Freddie fell 22%.

   What’s really bad news for these companies is that two U.S. Senators stood up to tell the world that these two companies are “too big to fail.” Republican Presidential nominee John McCain told reporters, “They must not fail,” and that they “are vital to Americans’ ability to own their own homes.”

   Later, the distinguished windbag Senator from the state of New York, Charles Schumer said, “Markets should be assured that the federal government will stand by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” He said the firms are “are too important to go under,” and Congress “will act quickly”.

   Who do these men think they are, Moses parting the Red Sea. We’ve never seen public servant or elected politician perform a miracle. Acts of God that defy the laws of nature are generally reserved to…you know…God.  Saying something “must not fail” doesn’t mean you can prevent it.

   But it’s Friday. So how about a hand for the unbridled idiocy of American policy makers! How about a standing ovation for the dizzying heights of audacity reached by people so far out of touch with reality that they believe they can defy the laws of economics? Hip hip! Hooray!

   What exactly do you think the U.S. Congress can do to save the GSEs? By our reckoning, it can provide the GSEs with cash to continue to meet operating expenses. There are only two other options. And let’s be clear about this: if the U.S. Government chooses either of the remaining options, it will be a virtual death blow for the U.S. dollar the rest of this year and pop the largest remaining sub-bubble in the credit market.

   What can Congress do? First, it can ask the Fed to extend its securities lending program to the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie would be able to exchange impaired mortgage-backed bonds for liquid U.S. Treasuries. Granted, the Fed is running low on Treasuries already, having lent billions to its buddies on Wall Street. But that is a great thing about being a central bank with a monopoly on money. The Fed can simply print more money to buy more Treasuries (although the U.S. Treasury Department would have to create new debt to sell to the Fed).

   The other option for U.S. policy makers is to clearly state that Fannie and Freddie bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. You can take that for what it’s worth. We wonder how the bond market would take it. How much faith and credit does the world currently have in the financial position of the United States?

   Fannie and Freddie have guaranteed more than US$5.2 trillion in mortgage-backed bonds and securitised mortgages. Who owns them? As we said the other day…everyone! Central banks…pension funds…insurance companies. The big and terrifying fact for the world’s financial system is that GSE debt makes up some portion of the assets of many financial institutions and investment funds.

   The U.S. government can move to stabilise that market by guaranteeing the debt. But we believe that if it does so, it will lead directly to the popping of the other big remaining bubble in the credit markets: the U.S. Treasury market (bonds and notes).

   In the sixty three years since the end of World War Two, there hasn’t been a much safer investment on the planet than U.S. Treasury bonds, at least according to conventional wisdom. But the credit rating agencies, for what they’re worth, would have to take a serious look at downgrading the credit quality of sovereign American debt if the U.S. government changed its implied backing of GSE debt to an explicit backing.

   The consequences of a (much deserved) lower credit rating for the U.S. government are too long to go into here. Suffice it to say the bond market won’t wait. The trouble is, what do you do with your money if government bonds aren’t safe? Cash is one answer. Owning some form of your wealth in precious metals is another. Gold should regain ground against oil in the second half if the GSE story continues to unfold in nightmare fashion.

   In any event, it hasn’t quite come to that. Congress, Obama, and McCain must all be hoping that the GSE problem just goes away, at least until after the election. But the market will not wait. It could be a brutal summer.

Source: Fannie and Freddie Are Surely Doomed

Hier der Original-Artikel aus der New York Times dazu, in dem ich das entsprechende Zitat fett hervorgehoben habe, es stammt von "government officials".

---

www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/...?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

NEW YORK TIMES
July 12, 2008
Woes at Loan Agencies and Oil-Price Spike Roil Markets
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares fell again Friday — and the broader stock market followed suit — as concern mounted that the government will be forced to take over the beleaguered mortgage finance companies, which some investors fear are at risk of default.

Even after a week of unprecedented losses, the companies’ declines early Friday were the sharpest yet: Freddie Mac shares were down more than 50 percent early in the day before paring their losses in the afternoon. Freddie Mac closed down 3.1 percent, at $7.75. Fannie Mae stock fell as much as 49 percent before rallying and ended down more than 22 percent, at $10.25.

Investors, meanwhile, snapped up debt issued by those companies, and the insurance premiums on those securities dropped sharply on the view that they would be protected by a government takeover.

The Bush administration sought to allay market fears. The president, after meeting with his team of economic advisers Friday morning, said he was briefed on the situation by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

“He assured me that he and Ben Bernanke will be working this issue very hard,” Mr. Bush told reporters after the meeting.

Hoping to calm the markets, Mr. Paulson issued a statement that suggested that no government takeover of Fannie and Freddie is imminent.

“Today our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form as they carry out their important mission,” Mr. Paulson said. “We are maintaining a dialogue with regulators and with the companies.”But the remarks did not appear to placate investors at first, who accelerated the sell-off that began at the market’s open. Investors were running scared across the board, sending the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 200 points during the day and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index down 1.6 percent. But investors stages a rally in the afternoon and recovered some of their losses. The Dow, which fell below 11,000 at one point, finished down 128.48 points, or 1.1 percent, at 11,100.54. The S.& P. 500 closed down 13.90 points, or 1.1 percent, to 1,239.49. The Nasdaq composite index dropped 18.77 points, or 0.8 percent, to 2,239.08.

Adding to the pain was a $5 surge in the price of oil, which reached another record in overnight trading, touching $147 a barrel, on concern over recent tensions in the Middle East. Oil later pulled back and settled at $145.08, up $3.43.

Investment banks and other financial firms led the day’s declines, with Lehman Brothers, itself the subject of meltdown rumors over the last few weeks, losing 17 percent, to $14.43, down $2.87.

Lehman’s stock has lost 37 percent of its value in the last week alone and is on track for its worst weekly streak since the investment house went public in 1994. The perceived risk that the bank will default on its loans also rose on Friday, as measured by the market for so-called credit default swaps.

Freddie Mac stock has lost 47 percent of its value in the last week alone. Fannie Mae shares have fallen 45 percent during that period. Both companies’ shares are trading at their lowest levels in nearly two decades.

Though shares of Fannie and Freddie are quickly declining, investors appear to be less concerned that the companies will be forced to default on their loans. The perceived risk of buying debt from the companies fell on Friday, as measured by the yield on the 10-year Fannie Mae note, which declined relative to its comparable Treasury bill.

Investors may be feeling more confident that, even if the companies fail, the government would step in and guarantee their outstanding obligations.

Senior Bush administration officials are already considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of the companies and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen, according to people briefed about the plan.

Under a conservatorship, shares of Fannie and Freddie would be worth little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee — which could be staggering — would be paid by taxpayers.

The government officials said that the administration had also considered calling for legislation that would offer an explicit government guarantee on the $5 trillion of debt owned or guaranteed by the companies. But that is a far less attractive option, they said, because it would effectively double the size of the public debt.

The officials involved in the discussions stressed that no action by the administration was imminent and that Fannie and Freddie are not considered to be in a crisis situation. But in recent days, enough concern has built among senior government officials over the health of the giant mortgage finance companies for them to hold a series of meetings and conference calls to discuss contingency plans.

Stephen Labaton contributed reporting from Washington.