ONE MORE QUESTION TO ASK IN DISCOVERY: WHAT ENTITIES WERE CREATED OR EMPLOYED IN THE TRADING OF MORTGAGE BONDS, CDO’S, SYNTHETIC CDO’S OR TOTAL RETURN SWAPS (NEW TERM)?

EDITOR’S COMMENT: LOUISE STORY, in her article in the New York Times continues to dig deeper into the games played by Wall Street firms. You’ll remember that the executives of the major Wall Street firms were spouting off the message that the risks and consequences were unknown to them. They didn’t know anything was wrong. Maybe they were stupid or distracted. And maybe they were just plain lying. The risks to these fine gentlemen and their companies are now enormous. If the veil of non-disclosure (opaque, in Wall Street jargon) continues to be eroded, they move closer and closer to root changes in Wall Street and both criminal and civil liability. It also leads inevitably to the conclusion that the loans and the bonds were bogus.

Yes it is true that money exchanged hands — but not in any of the ways that most people imagine and not in any way that was disclosed as required by TILA, state law, Securities Laws and other applicable statutes, rules and regulations. They continue to pursue foreclosure principally for the purpose of distracting everyone from the truth — that the transactions were wrong in every conceivable way and they knew it.

If there was nothing wrong with these innovative financial products why were they “off-balance sheet.” If there isn’t any problem with them now, then why can’t they produce an accounting, like any other situation, and say “this person borrowed money and didn’t pay it back. We will lose money if they don’t — here is the proof.” If everything was proper and appropriate, then why are we seeing revealed new entities and new layers of deception as Ms. Story and other reporters dig deeper and deeper?

The answer is simple: they were hiding the truth in circular transactions that were partially off balance sheet and partially on. I wonder how many borrowers would be charged with fraud for doing that? Now, thanks to Louise Story, we have some new names to research — Pyxis, Steers, Parcs, and unnamed “customer trades. They all amount to the same thing.

The bonds and the loans claimed to be attached to the bonds were being bought and sold in and out of the investment banking firm that created them. If they produce the real accounting the depth and scope of their fraud will become obvious to everyone, including the Judges that say we won’t give a borrower a free house. What these Judges are doing is ignoring the reality that they are giving a free house and a free ride to companies with no interest in the transaction. And they are directly contributing to a title mess that will take decades to untangle.

August 9, 2010

Merrill’s Risk Disclosure Dodges Are Unearthed

By LOUISE STORY

It was named after a faint constellation in the southern sky: Pyxis, the Mariner’s Compass. But it helped to steer the mighty Merrill Lynch toward disaster.

Barely visible to any but a few inside Merrill, Pyxis was created at the height of the mortgage mania as a sink for subprime securities. Intended for one purpose and operated off the books, this entity and others like it at Merrill helped the bank obscure the outsize risks it was taking.

The Pyxis story is about who knew what and when on Wall Street — and who did not. Publicly, banks vastly underestimated their exposure to the dangerous mortgage investments they were creating. Privately, trading executives often knew far more about the perils than they let on.

Only after the housing bubble began to deflate did Merrill and other banks begin to clearly divulge the many billions of dollars of troubled securities that were linked to them, often through opaque vehicles like Pyxis.

In the third quarter of 2007, for instance, Merrill reported that its potential exposure to certain subprime investments was $15.2 billion. Three months later, it said that exposure was actually $46 billion.

At the time, Merrill said it had initially excluded the difference because it thought it had protected itself with various hedges.

But many of those hedges later failed, and Merrill, the brokerage giant that brought Wall Street to Main Street, soon collapsed into the arms of Bank of America.

“It’s like the parable of the blind man and the elephant: you had some people feeling the trunk and some the legs, and there was nobody putting it all together,” Gary Witt, a former managing director at Moody’s Investors Service who now teaches at Temple University, said of the situation at Merrill and other banks.

Wall Street has come a long way since the dark days of 2008, when the near collapse of American finance heralded the end of flush times for many people. But even now, two years on, regulators are still trying to piece together how so much went so wrong on Wall Street.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether banks adequately disclosed their financial risks during the boom and subsequent bust. The question has taken on new urgency now that Citigroup has agreed to pay $75 million to settle S.E.C. claims that it misled investors about its exposure to collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s.

As Merrill did with vehicles like Pyxis, Citigroup shifted much of the risks associated with its C.D.O.’s off its books, only to have those risks boomerang. Jessica Oppenheim, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, declined to comment.

Such financial tactics, and the S.E.C.’s inquiry into banks’ disclosures, raise thorny questions for policy makers. The investigation throws an uncomfortable spotlight on the vast network of hedge funds and “special purpose vehicles” that financial companies still use to finance their operations and the investments they create.

The recent overhaul of financial regulation did little to address this shadow banking system. Nor does it address whether banking executives should be required to disclose more about the risks their banks take.

Most Wall Street firms disclosed little about their mortgage holdings before the crisis, in part because many executives thought the investments were safe. But in some cases, executives failed to grasp the potential dangers partly because the risks were obscured, even to them, via off-balance-sheet programs.

Executives’ decisions about what to disclose may have been clouded by hopes that the market would recover, analysts said.

“There was probably some misplaced optimism that it would work out,” said John McDonald, a banking analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “But in a time of high uncertainty, maybe the disclosure burden should be pushed towards greater disclosure.”

The Pyxis episode begins in 2006, when the overheated and overleveraged housing market was beginning its painful decline.

During the bubble years, many Wall Street banks built a lucrative business packaging home mortgages into bonds and other investments. But few players were bigger than Merrill Lynch, which became a leader in creating C.D.O.’s

Initially, Merrill often relied on credit insurance from the American International Group to make certain parts of its C.D.O.’s attractive to investors. But when A.I.G. stopped writing those policies in early 2006 because of concerns over the housing market, Merrill ended up holding on to more of those pieces itself.

So that summer, Merrill Lynch created a group of three traders to reduce its exposure to the fast-sinking mortgage market. According to three former employees with direct knowledge of this group, the traders first tried sell the vestigial C.D.O. investments. If that did not work, they tried to find a foreign bank to finance their own purchase of the C.D.O.’s. If that failed, they turned to Pyxis or similar programs, called Steers and Parcs, as well as to custom trades.

These programs generally issued short-term I.O.U.’s to investors and then used that money to buy various assets, including the leftover C.D.O. pieces.

But there was a catch. In forming Pyxis and the other programs, Merrill guaranteed the notes they issued by agreeing to take back any securities put in the programs that turned out to be of poor quality. In other words, these vehicles were essentially buying pieces of C.D.O.’s from Merrill using the proceeds of notes guaranteed by Merrill and leaving Merrill on the hook for any losses.

To further complicate the matter, Merrill traders sometimes used the cash inside new C.D.O.’s to buy the Pyxis notes, meaning that the C.D.O.’s were investing in Pyxis, even as Pyxis was investing in C.D.O.’s.

“It was circular, yes, but it was all ultimately tied to Merrill,” said a former Merrill employee, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to jeopardize ongoing business with Merrill.

To provide the guarantee that made all of this work, Merrill entered into a derivatives contract known as a total return swap, obliging it to cover any losses at Pyxis. Citigroup used similar arrangements that the S.E.C. now says should have been disclosed to shareholders in the summer of 2007.

One difficulty for the S.E.C. and other investigators is determining exactly when banks should have disclosed more about their mortgage holdings. Banks are required to disclose only what they expect their exposure to be. If they believe they are fully hedged, they can even report that they have no exposure at all. Being wrong is no crime.

Moreover, banks can lump all sorts of trades together in their financial statements and are not required to disclose the full face value of many derivatives, including the type of guarantees that Merrill used.

“Should they have told us all of their subprime mortgage exposure?” said Jeffery Harte, an analyst with Sandler O’Neill. “Nobody knew that was going to be such a huge problem. The next step is they would be giving us their entire trading book.”

Still, Mr. Harte and other analysts said they were surprised in 2007 by Merrill’s escalating exposure and its initial decision not to disclose the full extent of its mortgage holdings. Greater disclosure about Merrill’s mortgage holdings and programs like Pyxis might have raised red flags to senior executives and shareholders, who could have demanded that Merrill stop producing the risky securities that later brought the firm down.

Former Merrill employees said it would have been virtually impossible for Merrill to continue to carry out so many C.D.O. deals in 2006 without the likes of Pyxis. Those lucrative deals helped fatten profits in the short term — and hence the annual bonuses paid to its employees. In 2006, even as the seeds of its undoing were being planted, Merrill Lynch paid out more than $5 billion in bonuses.

It was not until the autumn of 2007 that Pyxis and its brethren set off alarm bells outside Merrill. C.D.O. specialists at Moody’s pieced together the role of Pyxis and warned Moody’s analysts who rated Merrill’s debt. Merrill soon preannounced a quarterly loss, and Moody’s downgraded the firm’s credit rating. By late 2007, Merrill had added pages of detailed disclosures to its earnings releases.

It was too late. The risks inside Merrill, virtually invisible a year earlier, had already mortally wounded one of Wall Street’s proudest names.