• Sprott Money
    05/26/2016 - 05:58
    How many “emergency” “secret” meetings do the central planners around the world need to have before the citizens of the respective countries begin to fully understand and take notice that something...

The Mother Of All Infographics: Visualizing America's Derivatives Universe

Tyler Durden's picture


A month ago we presented the latest derivatives update from the OCC, according to which the Top 5 US banks held 95.7%, or $221 trillion of the entire US derivative universe (which in turn is just a modest portion of the entire $707 trillion in global derivatives as of June 30, 2011). And while the numbers of all this credit money, because that's what it is, and the variation margin associated with all these trillions in bets is all too real, appeared impressive on paper, they did not do this story enough service. So to present, visually this time, the US derivatives problem, we go to our friends from Demonocracy, who put the $229 trillion derivative 'issue' in its proper context. For those curious what a paper equivalent of bailing out the US derivatives market would look like, now you know.

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:50 | 2359126 centerline
centerline's picture

If they did, it is probably what get's you on the fast-track to being the blessing for a volcano god or the like.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:54 | 2359139 Rubbish
Rubbish's picture


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 17:23 | 2359611 Handyman
Handyman's picture

There could be just enough superstition working on that day to trigger it. You never know.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:25 | 2359455 blu
blu's picture

If they had then they would not have needed to put the world down for destruction in December.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:45 | 2359112 carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:47 | 2359114 firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Derivatives are ways to spread the risk....so that we're all fucked.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:00 | 2359365 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Bailouts are pretty effective at spreading risk.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:26 | 2359456 blu
blu's picture

They're justing being extra careful. Between CDS and bailouts, it's gonna be covered.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:49 | 2359122 centerline
centerline's picture

Just add a shitload of zero's on the bills and that pile won't look so big.  What's to worry about?  I always wanted to be a millionaire!

(... wait, don't answer that).

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:54 | 2359134 reTARD
reTARD's picture

I prefer to call them Federal Reserve Notes. Some many prefer Toilet Paper. Others only computerized digits.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:56 | 2359359 jarrollin
jarrollin's picture

did you get a haircut btw?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:03 | 2359381 reTARD
reTARD's picture

No, bankers don't really take haircuts. I just running the show with my eyes sealed shut. LOL

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 19:07 | 2359799 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

Best avatar pic ever.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:52 | 2359135 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

Definitely seconding what that other poster said.   They should put silver, gold and platinum cubes representing all the known metals mined in all of history just to drive the comparison home.

And a stack of 100's to demonstrate comparisons. 

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:55 | 2359144 Silversem
Silversem's picture

A credit implosion of this magnitude asks only for one thing: Gold

a cfd position against the big financials can also be interesting

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:55 | 2359145 manhunter
manhunter's picture

In what sense is credit money all too real?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:58 | 2359158 TMT
TMT's picture

$221 Trillion ... come on TD that is GROSS exposure.  NET exposure is around $1.3 million.

Nothing to worry about.


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:35 | 2359276 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



I attended a conference of CROs earlier this week, and one of the bankers said, in earnest, that "everyone" missed the boat on the the MBS/CDO play.  I slipped a question to the moderator as to whether or not the dood had heard of Micheal Lewis and The Big Short.  Never got asked.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 19:32 | 2359855 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:58 | 2359163 jarrollin
jarrollin's picture

Unfortunately, most posters see this graphic all wrong.  These were just some things Blythe Masters was browsing for at London's World Famous Sex Toy Shop.  Apparently, such things aren't as taboo in Europe.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 14:59 | 2359164 Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:02 | 2359183 Yorick7
Yorick7's picture

But they all net to zero.  For every buyer of a derivative theres a seller and vice versa.  The real risk is that if one of these too big banks fails it takes the rest with them and most of the banking system because the market is very intertwined.  Also these are notional numbers and don't really reflect the true size of the risk.  Any way, neat to see visually how big a trillion is.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:08 | 2359202 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

They all net to zero, but by the time one bank's gross exposure is var margined to zero (because there is real money exchanging hands every EOD), it will blow up several thousands times in a row courtesy of real Tier 1 capital ratios of 4-5% or so.  So unless the counterparty is willing to bail out the bank on the other side of the trade, it will be the Fed over and over.

Read more here.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:11 | 2359210 ZeroIQ
ZeroIQ's picture


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:54 | 2359547 prains
prains's picture

But they all net to zero.


didn't laffer say the same thing 06'

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 19:57 | 2359893 Seer
Seer's picture

One could also say that the velocity of money would hit zero; and you know what this would mean...

Geez, people!  Wake up!  That which cannot continue forever won't!  Pretty simple to assess, no need for fancy graphics or complex numbers!

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:18 | 2359230 amadeusb4
amadeusb4's picture

Thank you.

I am more than a bit disappointed for a site like ZH to fear monger this way. This is akin to saying that every lotto number issued IS a winner and multiplying the jackpot times the number of tickets outstanding to scream about the state's shortfall in paying out winnings. Clearly not every option will be in the money when it expires. In fact the vast majority of options expire worthless!

This kind of sensationalism misdirects focus from institutional exposure to derivative risk.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:29 | 2359258 centerline
centerline's picture

Wrong.  the argument you guys are posing is about as realistic as Krugman's arguments about debt levels not being of concern because it is debt we owe ourselves (one man's debt is another man's asset - feel free to laugh).

In the "real" world of endogenous money creation, the risk is in what is different between banks, agreements, timing, borders, etc.  Assuming it all nets to zero is a fallacy of double-entry accounting which does not take into account the dynamics of money, let alone human behavior.

In short, a swelling market of private debt (or contracts made against private debt that would force government debt to be pulled into existence to avoid debt deflation in a calamity) ought to scare everyone.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:35 | 2359277 Yorick7
Yorick7's picture

derivatives arent debt in the sense that a bond is.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:41 | 2359298 centerline
centerline's picture

The are contracts for/against debt.  What happens when they trigger?  Money (debt) is called.  The derivatives market is a massive pile of conditional private IOU's for government IOU's.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 20:34 | 2359969 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

why don't people see that??

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 21:37 | 2360076 centerline
centerline's picture

Too busy watching American Idol.  I like to think the public at large has the ability to process this.  But, I know better.  Rather than turning against those who have perpetrated this, they will turn on themselves and you and I - by design.  This is what really pisses me off.

Fri, 04/20/2012 - 00:45 | 2360353 Bear
Bear's picture

By the way ... who got kicked off this week?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 15:57 | 2359362 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

@centerline - I think you are the one thats wrong here. If I remember correctly, there's an equal sign in the middle of every equation. I think they call it mathematics or physics or something. Of course, all the mathamaticians and physicists in the world COULD be wrong. Not

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:11 | 2359393 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



No.  Centerline has it right.  But let's try a little math experiment to help some of y'all understand.

If you bet $1 on the outcome of a flip of the coin coming up heads, the expected value is $0.50.  So you can come up with a whole bunch of equations using the $0.50 expected value.  Here's the problem: $0.50 will never be the outcome - it will always be $1 or $0.  So if you get too many tails in a row, you are out of cash before the expected value comes to be.

The expected value of every (correctly priced) option is $0.  Yet, somehow, some way, they (almost) never payout $0.  Guess what happens if enough of that $229T comes up tails too many times in a row?  (And, unlike flipping coins, the behaviors of the underlyings in options tend to be pretty correlated = more risk, yeehaw!)

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:19 | 2359420 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

I think you are wrong.

If we both bet $1 on the outcome of a flip of coin, the expected value would be $2 since you also would have to put a dollar on the table.

So, you got an F in math.

I'm sure you're good at something.

Why are your pants all worn out around your knees?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:23 | 2359436 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



The expected value is $2?  And you think I got an F in math? 

Oh dear...

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:25 | 2359452 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Good lord, you both get an F.

If two people each put a dollar on the table, the expected value for each player is ONE DOLLAR.  There are two possible outcomes, one where you walk away with nothing, and one where you walk away with $2.  You get the expected value by taking the weighted average of all possible outcomes.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:30 | 2359464 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Thanks Tmosley, but I got that part.  I never said that there were two dollars at stake.  I said one dollar, bet against a 50% outcome of success yields an expected value of $0.50.  I didn't expect Vinny Barbarino to show up and confuse you and everyone else...

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:47 | 2359520 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

I stand corrected. There is a value of $1, but a net pot of $2. Either way the math works out. My point is that the bankers would have us believe that 1+1=3 or something like that. They use a lot of technical nutshell nonsense to hide good ol fashion money printing. Did anyone actually believe that Quantitative easing was  any different from what happens every day?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 20:06 | 2359906 Seer
Seer's picture

"There is a value of $1, but a net pot of $2."

But it's a magical pot...  The $2 doesn't exist in this game.  There is, just like with fractional banking, only a fraction (IF THAT!) behind each bet.  There's not enough "liquid" to fill the glasses.  Someone MAY get a full glass, but after that that's likely it.

Nothing like making all of humankind one big bluffing game.  And now that things are getting serious the big players expect REAL money is to be paid out, and that's NOT going to happen.  Thus commences wide-scale war...

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:30 | 2359475 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture

'you also would have to put a dollar on the table.'

You're still assuming everyone is betting with "tangible assets" instead of leveraged IOU's..

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 17:00 | 2359522 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



You all have the wrong perspective.  Try this...

You are Jon Corzine. 

You have had a run of bad luck at the casino.

You borrow a dollar from Jamie Dimon, with two of your client's dollars as collateral, and you put it on the table...

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 17:16 | 2359599 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture

or there's that.. hahaha

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 19:46 | 2359874 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

... and your expected outcome (and likely outcome) is $1.0B ....

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 20:11 | 2359920 Seer
Seer's picture

Via the taxpayer-funded payout window!

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:25 | 2359451 Yorick7
Yorick7's picture

Someone has the other side of the bet.  You can't create a bet out of nothing.  The net value of your bet and the guy/gal who lays the bet is zero in your example.

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:28 | 2359459 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



So you're ok if you give me $10 million today and I give it back to you next week?  Net value is zero, right?  There wouldn't be a solvency issue in there anywhere, would there?

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 16:51 | 2359533 Yorick7
Yorick7's picture

Thats a credit issue, not betting.  Betting is slightly different from derivatives because with derivatives you can hedge in the underlying, thus the name "derivative", the price is derived from an underlying asset which you can buy or sell to reduce your exposure.  But it still all nets out when you consider the value of payout on the derivative and the hedge.  

This is not to say that derivatives in the hands of people who don't understand them aren't dangerous, rather that you end up with zero and the other side gets all your money.


Thu, 04/19/2012 - 17:11 | 2359587 centerline
centerline's picture

It is all betting.  Period.  There is no fundamental difference except the instruments of betting are usually pretty simple.  In the case of the financial world, the bets are constructred by teams of lawyers.

Real world productive use for "betting" (err.... hedging) is okay.  Just a part of doing business.  Hell, life insurance is a bet.  What we have here though is a ponzi profit machine based on betting.  The consequence is that once put in motion, you can't stop it without breaking it.  The gains are recursive though - so there is an end.  But, by then the stakes will be too high to avoid a major calamity.

Now, if this were a closed system (say just one island nation with no ties to the rest of the world) we might be get through it okay.  But, the counterparty exposure here crosses many borders, political regimes, ideologies, etc.  It simply won't end well.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!