I just warned about this early this morning.

CIBC Provides Update to Previous Disclosure on U.S. Subprime Real Estate CDO / RMBS including Likely Large Write-down in First Quarter 2008 Financial Results
Canada NewsWire via COMTEX - Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Posted: 11:40 AM

"Following Standard and Poor's announcement today that it had reduced the credit rating of ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. from "A" to "CCC", CIBC confirmed that ACA is a hedge counterparty to CIBC in respect of approximately U.S. $3.5 billion of its U.S. subprime real estate exposure."

ACA is a small player. Those guys insured by Ambac are in for a RUDE awakening. This includes several of the I banks in this article that I am commenting on. Just go through the pdf file in the Ambac analysis follow up to see who's gettin' who.

Published in BoomBustBlog

From Briefing.com and streetinsider.com:

"MBIA (MBI) gave investors a jolt this morning when it disclosed that its total exposure to Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDOs, totals $30.6 billion. Included in that exposure is $8.1 billion comprised of CDOs and mortgage backed securities, 70% of which is rated AAA. "

Boom, Bust Bling readers can not tell their associates "I toldja so". MBIA is down $7 through midday trading, as if anybody should truly be surprised.

"MBIA's announcement is especially disconcerting considering the company withheld the information from the public until after its rating was upheld by Moody's and Standard & Poor's. "

I'm still waiting to see how Moody's justifies a AAA rating. I have this company looking at insolvency and they have it at AAA. One of us really don't know what we are doing!

"According to CMA Datavision in London, credit-default swaps tied to MBIA's bonds climbed 115 basis points to 595 basis points, the widest on record"

To the CDS sales manager at MF Global, now you see why I needed what I was asking for at your party.

Published in BoomBustBlog

I went through your blog and the new post on Moody's rating affirmation and Ambac's reinsurance was fairly comprehensive. I especially liked the part where you talked about blood transfusion between two sick people and calling it a cure. I can't think of a better analogy that fits so well in this case.

Regarding my opinion on your post, From what I could gather, Ambac, struggling to avoid the losses of its AAA credit rating, took out insurance on $29 billion in securities it guarantees. The world's 2nd largest bond insurer agreed to transfer the risk that the securities will default to Assured Guaranty Ltd.

Robert Genader, Ambac's CEO had the following comment:
"Reinsurance is a valuable, capital-efficient and shareholder-friendly tool or managing risk and capital."

Reinsurance on $29 billion out of $556 billion portfolio – don’t know how much “risk” the company is likely to manage by reinsuring 5% of its portfolio.

Published in BoomBustBlog

Okay folks, now its official! According to Moody's, you can now rest asured that your retirement portfolio insured by Ambac is just as safe as those insured by Berkshire Hathaway, et. al., - AAA safe! Moody's has spoken...

From WSJ.com:
"Moody's gave a tentative pass to the biggest bond insurer, MBIA Inc., by affirming its rating late Friday but changing the outlook to "negative," in a move sure to cause howls from bearish investors and sighs of relief from Wall Street. Moody's also affirmed the triple-A rating of Ambac Financial Group Inc., another major bond insurer.

Moody's update of its view of the bond insurers had been awaited because of concern about the impact of troubles in the mortgage market on securities that bond insurers cover. Bond insurers guarantee the principal and interest payments on more than $2 trillion in debt, including securities that are backed up by mortgages.

Both MBIA and Ambac are top-rated insurers, and both have announced moves this month to boost their capital, which could help protect those ratings. This month, a private equity firm agreed to provide up to $1 billion to MBIA, which said at the time that it was also considering additional capital options. And Ambac struck a deal under which it bought reinsurance for a $29 billion portfolio."

Hmmm.

Published in BoomBustBlog

ACA is a holding company that provides financial guaranty insurance products to participants in the global credit derivatives markets, structured finance capital markets and municipal finance capital markets. I believe it may be close to its death knell, and possibly delisted. Expect to see an announcement like this for Ambac Financial over the next 8 quarters.

Published in BoomBustBlog

This is part one of a two part response to comments and questions on the recent events concerning the Ambac and MBIA. The second part will be a forensic marking to market of Ambac's portfolio based upon the recent E*Trade sale. Required reading for this article includes:

  1. A Super Scary Halloween Tale of 104 Basis Points Pt I & II, by Reggie Middleton.
  2. Ambac is Effectively Insolvent & Will See More than $8 Billion of Losses with Just a $2.26 Billion Market Cap
  3. Follow up to the Ambac Analysis
  4. Monolines swoon, CDOs go boom & I really wonder why the ratings agencies are given any credibility
  5. Bill Ackman of Pershing Square - How to save the Monolines

Note: this came directly from one of my analysts, who seems to have been infected by my smart ass writing style :-)

MBIA � The company mentioned that "fair value" of their portfolio dropped by $850 million in the one month between September 30 and October 30, 2007. That speaks volumes. As far as equity infusion is concerned, MBIA is merely replacing the capital they have already lost. This may sound simplistic, but this is how it is. The caveat is, they are replacing it by diluting their current shareholders. Thus, those who did not do the math have bid the share price up, instead of down. Given the significant amount of exposure that the company has (MBIA has about $84 billion in residential ABS and CDO exposure), $1 billion of capital infusion at this point may not be sufficient; though it may keep off the immediate rating downgrade concern. The company has also mentioned that they�re setting aside $800 million to cover estimated losses on residential mortgage-backed securities in the fourth quarter. This will further impact its bottom line.

Published in BoomBustBlog
Thursday, 06 December 2007 00:00

More tidbits on the monolines

Taken from the 11/28 Pershing Square presentation:

Goldman Sachs Estimate Of Bond Insurer Losses

In response to requests from investors, Ambac recently identified some of the specific CDOs to which it had exposure. Goldman Sachs conducted a “thorough analysis of the unmasked transactions” and reached a “discouraging” conclusion

Published in BoomBustBlog

Warning: this is an opinionated blog article that may offend those employed by large rating's agencies or monoline insurers. Recommend reading as a backgrounder:

  1. A Super Scary Halloween Tale of 104 Basis Points Pt I & II, by Reggie Middleton.
  2. Ambac is Effectively Insolvent & Will See More than $8 Billion of Losses with Just a $2.26 Billion Market Cap
  3. Follow up to the Ambac Analysis
  4. Bill Ackman of Pershing Square - How to save the Monolines

From Bloomberg news:

MBIA Inc. fell the most in more than 20 years in New York trading after Moody's Investors Service said the biggest bond insurer is ``somewhat likely'' to face a shortage of capital that threatens its AAA credit rating.

A review of MBIA and six other AAA rated guarantors will be completed within two weeks, Moody's said in a statement today. Moody's revised its assessment from last month that MBIA was unlikely to need more capital after additional scrutiny of the Armonk, New York-based bond insurer's mortgage-backed securities portfolio.

``The guarantor is at greater risk of exhibiting a capital shortfall than previously communicated, (about a week and a half ago - my, aren't we fickle with our opinions) New York-based Moody's said. ``We now consider this somewhat likely.''

Published in BoomBustBlog
Tuesday, 04 December 2007 00:00

Follow up to the Ambac Analysis

I have been receiving a lot of feedback on the Ambac article and the MBIA one as well. Many want more in terms of clarification, assumptions, additional calculations, data, etc. I just want to remind all that this is a blog on my commentary and thoughts on the markets and my investments. My primary occupation is investing, not blogging. I disseminate my research and opinions to provoke discussion and I love to blog on these topics, but I have limited bandwidth to return emails. I do not want the lack of answers to email questions to appear as if I am avoiding them, it is just that after a certain level of volume it distracts me from my day job. Please keep the emails coming, just be aware that I may not be able to answer all of them. That being said, I will present some additional data from my Ambac research, and am considering posting a what-if scenario of Ambac insuring E-trade (I am sure that will garner some interest). After that, we will be moving on to the commercial real estate, investment banking and consumer finance sectors where I am arranging additional bearish positions and will blog on them. I will, of course, enjoy and entertain discourse on these or related topics.

Published in BoomBustBlog

I came to this conclusion after a detailed analysis of Ambac's portfolio (at least what Ambac has made public, which was sufficient) covering exposure in the Structured Finance, Sub-prime RMBS and the Consumer Finance business. Ambac's management was forthcoming enough to publish a portion of their insured portfolio which allowed me to review each structure.

I am short Ambac and MBIA (for whom I have also released research), so be aware of my position as I present this opinion. I profit not necessarily from whether ABK can continue as an ongoing concern (which is in doubt and wouldn't hurt my shorts to say the least), nor from an infusion of capital (whether it be debt or equity, either of which would be a poor investment from my perspective) but from the significant decline in value of the existing shares in which I have taken a bearish position. To determine my short position, I calculated relative nominal book valuations, actual economic book valuations and produced standard financial forecasts. Of interest is the loss tail analysis wherein I have estimated the present value of the future losses.

As it stands now, ABK's equity value will be totally wiped out with a 175 basis point move in their insured's underlying - which seems like a very, very likely possibility. My Ambac analysis is much more granular than that of MBIA's (see A Super Scary Halloween Tale of 104 Basis Points Pt I & II, by Reggie Middleton ) where I discussed the predicament of the ratings agencies, the monolines, and in particular, MBIA.

The referenced predicament is exacerbated by the fact that some, such as Ambac, are truly insolvent, thus a mere waiving of the "Magic Ratings Wand" will not pay the claims when they come due. More to the point, the monolines have grown too big for their capital base, specifically their equity base. They are insuring much more than they can handle in the case of an outlier event. I don't consider the burst real estate bubble and the consequent mortgage debacle much of an outlier, for anyone could have seen it coming if they simply opened their eyes.

Now, if a big monoline fails or is even downgraded, a large part of the credit market goes with it. This level of catastrophe may be too much for the powers that be. This portends a bailout of some sort or fashion, or maybe the players will just be forced to take their market medicine. Only the future will tell.

Six Degrees of Separation: Guess who Ambac insures!

Bank of America issued a report on the monoline insurers on July 30th, 2007 that states that ABK's RMBS exposure to troubled companies is limited to only 4 cos. with vintages primarily in the early years excluding two relatively well performing underwritings. Despite this, they failed to include in this caveat the consumer finance insureds:

  • Countrywide, which probably has one of the worst performing portfolios in the industry;
  • GMAC, who has also suffered significant losses that GM has been forced to cover, hence hampering a clean sale of the company;
  • Indymac, another company that is saddled with mortgage related losses that is on the insured's list (Indymac and Countrywide have had their shares more than halved in the last few months. I was short these companies. CFC may go bankrupt);
  • Lehman brothers has some losses to contend with as well, but I don't know to what extent since I don't follow it - I do know that they are the 2nd largest MBS house on the street, next to Bear Stearns;
  • Greenpoint Mortgage Funding is defunct, wound down due to losses;
  • Then we also have Citimortgage (SIV king whose own mortgage portfolio is a mess);
  • Accredited Mortgage Loan (bankrupt or close to it);
  • Wachovia (just reported a billion plus writedown on mortgage assets);
  • Countrywide Revolving Equity Trust/Alt-A trust (need I say more about undocumented 2nd lien loans from this lender);
  • Option One Mortgage Trust (nearly defunct due to mortgage losse);
  • BofA, mulit-billion dollar mortgage asset writedown;
  • and Newcastle - who I believe is either out of business or close to it. I stopped following it some time ago.

These are the companies and exposure that I am familiar with, at first glance in the consumer finance portion of Ambac's portfolio, without any research. Just imagine if I took a real hard look at the insureds.

Now, using some common damn sense, would you think that the company that is insuring these guys' mortgage and finance products with 90x leverage may be having some problems that they may not be coming forward with. I have over 100 pages of proprietary analysis and calculations costing me weeks of analyst hours, that tell me Ambac may be out of business soon - but I really didn't need to do all of that math and research if I just glanced at the bullet list above. I used the loss statistics from the BofA report as a baseline for the losses in my models on Ambac. I know they are too conservative (and to be fair to BofA, they were contrived before this mess got worse), but that should only lend credibility to my findings. Click here to download ambac loss tail.pdf.

The ACTUAL quality of the ABK's insureds is truly suspect in my opinion and the underwriting quality of their insureds needs to be investigated further. Unfortunately, I have very limited resources. I literally told my team that "this is worth digging in and spending time on, for there are many who are now trying to go long on this stock due to its price and nominal book valuation. If they are wrong, it can be a very profitable opportunity". Well, that's what we did. By investigating the losses on similar books written by the originators for the vintage in question, one can guess the performance of the books underwritten by AMBAC. The policy terms must be examined to see where the breakpoints are for losses, of course. Exposure to Countrywide alone is a cause for suspicion, IMO. As stated earlier, the default estimates in the B of A analysis are assuredly too conservative, but are used for the sake of prudence over alarmism (with some mandatory tweaks to edge them towards reality). Why do I say they are conservative??? Take a look at the REO rates and land value forecasts in my blog, and then look at the target prices for the insurers in question on the first page of B of A's analysis, right before you query the prices of these stocks today. For those that don't have access to the report, I will reveal just this one tiny part:

Bank of America Top Picks (June 2007)





























Ticker

Rating

Price

Target

Price as of 11/29/07

Profit on the BofA Call

% Profit

SCA

B

$23.60

$37.00

$6.69

($16.91)

(71.65%)

MBI

B

$60.33

$85.00

$30.04

($30.29)

(50.21%)

Least Favorites

NONE

You really can't get rich listening to these guys. Hopefully, you can see where the use of their default data is a conservative approach (even a bit rosy), albeit tweaked ever so slightly for the sake of reality. As you may have ascertained, I do not put a lot of faith in sell side research. I have even less faith in the big three rating agencies research (although Fitch is trying to be taken seriously). Thus, even if they deem ABK and MBIA not in need of more capital, that is near meaningless in my book. These are the same companies that rated the insured portfolios AAA a year or two ago that are now taking up to 20%+ losses.

We also have to contend with the moral hazard/bailout issue. If you read my earlier missive on MBIA, I detailed the rating agencies' dilemma.

The calculations in this analysis are only estimated losses in 4 insured categories (of many, they are enough to generate significant losses). I am expecting higher losses in Public Finance as well due to the loss of property tax revenues (lower tax base) and income tax revenues led by housing value declines and loss of corporate revenue and jobs, respectively. Many municipalities created huge budgets during bubble times (like everyone else) and failed to prepare for the bubble to burst. Now unfunded services run rampant. The shortfall will have to be covered somewhere, and default on debt service is not out of the question.

In the base case scenario created, we expect the company to report losses to the tune of $8 billion+ in its Structured Finance, Subprime RMBS and the Consumer Finance portfolio. This loss will wipe out the company's remaining equity and it will need to raise an additional $2 billion in order to function as an ongoing concern. Moreover, we think the company will need to reinsure a higher percentage of its portfolio in order to transfer risk and free up capital.

"The Truth! The Truth! You can't handle the Truth!"

I calculate that Ambac will need to raise an additional $2 billion in order to continue as a going concern. In order to maintain AAA status they will need $5.4 to $7 billion, according to how I perceived the comments of its CEO in the last conference call (they say they are an average of $1.4 billion above what is needed to maintain a AAA status from the three main rating agencies - without my little economic reality marking here). In the base case scenario below, Ambac will need to bolster its reserves by $6.8 billion. A fellow blogger that I follow, Mike Shedlock, commented that Citibank has recently sold approximately 5% of itself to a foreign investor to raise $7.5 billion dollars. Citibank is much more diversified, with a much larger capital base, than Ambac. Let's be realistic here - no let's not - Let's be highly optimistic with pretty rose colored glasses, and say that ABK can fetch a significant premium to Citibank's valuation. ABK's current market valuation is $2.26 billion. Where in the world will they get this kind of capital from and who will be the risk cowboy to give it to them??? These guys are in a real solvency dilemma, and it is a shame that the ratings agencies and the sell side guys have yet to admit it. I guess it takes entrepreneurial investors and bloggers such as me to ferret out the truth, and the truth is hard to find in detail. You remember what Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"? "The Truth! The Truth! You can't handle the Truth!" I had two analysts and I work on MBIA and ABK for weeks, when I should have been able to just buy a report... Yet, everyone expept Ackman from Pershing Square was unrealistically optimistic. There are some big losses ahead of us folks. If the real estate bust was the impetus for the current debacle, we have a long trip ahead of us because the real estate bust has just started!

My full analysis is bulky, but well documented, and will be posted as a .pdf if I get enough requests. Most should be satisfied with this lengthy summary























































































































































































































Here we have a loss tail analysis of the forecasted losses of the Structured Finance, Direct RMBS and Consumer Finance portfolio, expecting the losses of the vintage year 2005 to be paid over the next 5 years in 2006-2010. We have calclualted the loss ratio of the company which is deteriorating from 2007 onwards (denoted by Paid losses/Written premium ratio).

Base Case Analysis

Calendar year payout

Year

Gross written premium

Expense ratio

Total Expected losses

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2003

1,144

172

972

22

2004

1,048

157

891

61

2005

1,096

164

932

200

2006

997

150

847

504

2007

1,006

151

855

1,260

2008

766

115

651

1,928

2009

690

103

586

1,880

2010

635

95

539

1,741

2011

597

89

507

1,437

2012

561

84

477

671

Calendar year paid losses

22

61

200

504

1,260

1,928

1,880

1,741

1,437

671

Cumulative losses

22

83

283

787

2,047

3,975

5,855

7,596

9,033

9,704

Report year written premium

1,144

1,048

1,096

997

1,006

766

690

635

597

561

Paid Losses/Writtem Premium ratio

2%

6%

18%

51%

125%

252%

273%

274%

241%

120%

Outstanding loss reserves

950

1,780

2,512

2,856

2,451

1,174

(120)

(1,321)

(2,251)

(2,446)










































































































































































































































































Alternatively, we have calculated the provisioning for losses that Ambac will need to make every year on the basis of the anticipated losses that the company will have to pay in coming years. In doing so we have assumed that the 85% of the premium written from 2007 onwards (excluding 15% as underwrting expesnse) will be transferred to the loss expense reserve every year. The loss reserve uptill 2007 is taken from comapny's balance sheet. The losses have been calculated on the basis of various default probabilities assummed in Strucutred Finance, Direct Subprime RMBS and Consumer Finance portfolios. We have assumed a duration of 5 years to spread the losses on various vintages over the coming years. We anticipate the company will have to create a provisoin of $ 6.8 billion under the base case scenario.

Base Case Analysis

Calendar year payout

Year

Gross written premium

Loss and loss expense reserve

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2003

1,144

189

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2004

1,048

254

-

61

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2005

1,096

304

-

-

200

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2006

997

220

-

-

-

504

-

-

-

-

-

-

2007

1,006

279

-

-

-

-

1,260

-

-

-

-

-

2008

766

930

-

-

-

-

-

1,928

-

-

-

-

2009

690

1,517

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,880

-

-

-

2010

635

2,056

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,741

-

-

2011

597

2,563

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,437

-

2012

561

3,040

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

671

Calendar year paid losses

22

61

200

504

1,260

1,928

1,880

1,741

1,437

671

Cumulative losses

22

83

283

787

2,047

3,975

5,855

7,596

9,033

9,704

Provision for losses


4

(150)

(588)

(1,202)

(1,276)

(1,294)

(1,202)

(930)

(195)

Total

(6,832)



In our base case analysis of the CDO and the Subprime RMBS portfolio, we have assigned default probabilities based on collateral; wherein we have assumed an average default probability on its subprime collateral of 6% and on its ABS CDO mezzanine a default probability of 25%.














Average default probabilities (by Collateral)

Subprime RMBS

6%

Other RMBS

6%

ABS CDO High Grade

6%

ABS CDO Mezzanine

25%

CDO Other

10%

Other ABS

10%



In our base case analysis of the consumer finance business, we have assigned default probabilities largely based on ratings. We assigned a average default probability of 2% on its AAA rating portfolio and 11% average default probability on its BIG (Below Investment Grade) portfolio.












Average default probabilities (by Rating)

AAA

2%

AA

5%

A

6%

BBB

8%

BIG

11%



Valuation

In the case of Ambac, and most of my analyses, I draw a distinction between accounting (or nominal) book value and actual economic book value - the stuff I get paid for as an investor. Below you will see comparable valuation based upon nominal book value which actually has ABK underpriced. You will also see the forensically scrubbed economic book value, which in the most optimistic scenario (which I can tell you now, just ain't gonna happen) has Ambac valued at about $9 per share. You don't want to know what the base case and pessimistic scenario portend.




















































































































































































































Ambac Financial Corp

Relative Valuation

Nominal Book Value

FY2007

All Figures in Millions of Dollars, unless othrerwise stated


Mean Multiple

High Multiple

Low Multiple

BVPS



53.67

53.67

53.67


Equity Value Per Share

$22.5

$34.4

$12.7



Current Stock Price

$21.8

$21.8

$21.8

(Discount)/Premium to Fair Market Value

(3.11%)

(36.60%)

70.93%

Book value as marked to market (Optimistic Scenario)

FY2007

All Figures in Millions of Dollars, unless othrerwise stated


Mean Multiple

High Multiple

Low Multiple

BVPS



21.4

21.4

21.4


Equity Value Per Share

$8.97

$13.71

$5.09



Current Stock Price

$21.8

$21.8

$21.8

(Discount)/Premium to FMV

142.89%

58.93%

328.49%





Book value as marked to market (Base Case Scenario)

FY2007

All Figures in Millions of Dollars, unless othrerwise stated


Mean Multiple

High Multiple

Low Multiple

BVPS



-14.0

-14.0

-14.0


Equity Value Per Share

($5.87)

($8.98)

($3.33)



Current Stock Price

$21.8

$21.8

$21.8

(Discount)/Premium to FMV

(470.93%)

(342.71%)

(754.38%)








Peers

Name

Ticker

P/B '07

Price

BVPS '07

MBIA Financial

MBI

0.38

22.3

58.5

Assured Guaranty

AGO

0.64

20.17

The PMI Group

PMI

0.25

10.45

42.43

Primus Guaranty

PRS

0.59

5.91

Security Capital Assurance Ltd

SCA

0.24

5.32


Price to Book Value









Average


0.42

High


0.64

Low


0.24




The Effects of Adverse Spread Movement






An Increase in spread of 175 Bps would erode the entire equity


Residential Mortgage Back Security and CDO Exposure

Here you see Ambac has significant exposure to some of the worst vintage years, and as detailed above has some of the worst possible clients one would want ensure. These ingredients mix to become a very toxic cocktail, indeed.













































































































AMBAC

Total subprime exposure with in insured portfolio

Total MBS portfolio

53.9

RMBS subprime exposure

8.8

% of total RMBS portfolio

16.3%

Sub prime porfolio by vintage

vintage 1998-2001

1.2

13.6%

vintage 2002

1.2

13.6%

vintage 2003

2.4

27.3%

vintage 2004

0.8

9.1%

vintage 2005

1.6

18.2%

vintage 2006

1

11.4%

vintage 2007

0.6

6.8%

Direct Subprime RMBS

8.8

100.0%

36.4% of the subprime portfolio belongs to vintage years of 2006-2007 when credit writing standards has been on its low.

Total CDO portfolio (in US$bn)

High yield

24.3

34.0%

Investment grade

8.6

12.0%

ABS > 25% MBS

29.2

40.8%

ABS < 25% MBS

3

4.2%

Other

2.80

3.9%

Market value CDOs

3.60

5.0%


71.5

100.0%

Breakdown of CDO of ABS's subprime collateral by rating

2Q 07

3Q 07

AAA

3.8%

7.4%

AA

39.7%

39.0%

A

47.2%

36.9%

BBB

8.6%

8.7%

Below investment grade

0.7%

8.0%

















































































































































































































































































































Sensitivity Analysis - Default probabilities - Base case

Vintage

Sub-prime RMBS

Other RMBS

ABS CDO High grade

ABS CDO Mezzanine

CDO other

Other ABS

1998

2%






Average defualt probabilities (by Collateral)

1999

2%






Subprime RMBS

6%

2000

2%






Other RMBS

6%

2001

2%






ABS CDO High Grade

6%

2002

5%






ABS CDO Mezzanine

25%

2003

5%






CDO Other

10%

2004

8%

5%

5%

15%

10%

10%

Other ABS

10%

2005

8%

5%

5%

15%

10%

10%

2006

15%

8%

8%

35%

10%

10%

2007

15%

8%

8%

35%

10%

10%

Sensitivity Analysis - Deafulat probabilities - Worst case

Vintage

Sub-prime RMBS

Other RMBS

ABS CDO High grade

ABS CDO Mezzanine

CDO other

Other ABS

1998

5%






1999

5%






2000

5%






2001

5%






2002

10%






2003

10%






2004

20%

10%

10%

30%

15%

15%

2005

20%

10%

10%

30%

15%

15%

2006

30%

15%

15%

70%

15%

15%

2007

30%

15%

15%

70%

15%

15%

Published in BoomBustBlog