| |
| ▲ | cmiles8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes this is basically the Margin Call situation. Everyone knows these loans are dogshit but if anyone moves first to say so then everyone else’s loans basically are screwed too. So everyone is incentivized to pretend like there’s no problem even though everyone knows there’s a problem. | |
| ▲ | coredog64 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The trigger in Margin Call was not that they could not assess the risk, it was that they were improperly assessing the risk, had taken too much risk onboard, and the downside of the risk was more than the value of the firm. | | |
| ▲ | dofm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and no. The film is not really about that one day or that one discovery. Much of what Margin Call is about has already happened in the few days and weeks before the day in the movie — the events that precipitated the widespread firings, including a rather deliberate firing of the head of risk management, but are not really discussed. In the meeting, Sullivan is talking about the music slowing, saying "if the music were to stop…". He's suggesting that the situation is bad, in the context of the un-discussed preceding days, so some action is needed, which is why he escalated. Tuld saying he fears he "can't hear anything" is about much more fundamental uncertainty — his own belief that no set of numbers could be useful (he didn't even want to discuss the numbers in the report) and that the actual situation required acting on his gut instinct that it was much, much worse. He, basically, thinks the risk cannot be assessed ("I'm telling you, this is it!") and arbitrary action is needed. In short, the point is he did not have any confidence they could ride out the consequences of the preceding, largely un-discussed few days, because they were beyond their parameters, and that there was no time to assess the real hidden risk. The trigger for the chosen action is not the newly correct numbers in Sullivan's report, but it forcing Tuld to confront his belief that even those numbers were no guide for anything. (Sam's dog dying after his sad failure of a divorce is a crucial metaphor — the dog days are literally and metaphorically over) |
| |
| ▲ | rhdunn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Listening to Ed Zitron on various podcasts, there are several issues with Oracle stocks: 1. they are one place above junk; 2. they are being treated as effectively junk; 3. if they get classified as junk, any pension portfolios holding Oracle stock must sell as they can't hold junk stocks. If that happens then there will be a cascade of effects. Not just in the AI/datacentre sector but elsewhere, as Larry Ellison holds a stake in Paramount/helped finance the Paramount/WB merger. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaPfdnRoZ4 -- Mostly Economics Podcast #55: Who pays when the AI bubble bursts with Ed Zitron (12:36 - 23:53) | | |
| ▲ | dofm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oracle's force majeure notice on a data centre build-out is not helping, I am sure. (Can't remember, is it this Texas one?) ETA: This whole Oracle bit is really the area of Zitron's predictions that is the least contentious: he called things, they are happening. The big question is to what extent this is a harbinger of bad things. In a less crazy market where the value of enterprise-software-backed consultancy is stable or growing, you can imagine people lining up to bite off chunks from the carcass of a failed Oracle. But is the value of enterprise software even stable? Aren't many of the possible buyers also overextending themselves? ETA 2: No, the potential force majeure is about a project in New Mexico, apparently | |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >3. if they get classified as junk, any pension portfolios holding Oracle stock must sell as they can't hold junk stocks. Wouldn't hedge funds or PE recognize this arbitrage opportunity and eat this up, making this a non-issue? Vastly simplifying this: suppose "junk bond" means the chance of default is greater or equal to 10%. Of course it's bad if the risk of oracle going bankrupt edges up from 9% to 10.1%, but we shouldn't expect pandemonium from the 10% cliff edge, because there's plenty to be made by selling all the bonds that pension funds are obligated to sell, because now they have higher yields (yields move inverse to bond prices). | | |
| ▲ | dofm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why aren't the PE firms buying this debt right now though, before Oracle is downgraded? Isn't that a better purchase? (Sincere, not rhetorical questions) | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because assuming the premise is true, there will be a dip in bond prices (ie. higher yields) when oracle gets downgraded, because pension funds or whatever have to dump their holdings. You buy the dip, not at the top. | |
| ▲ | cmiles8 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because the general consensus at this point appears to be that the notes will fail. You wouldn’t buy a loan if you thought it wasn’t going to be repaid. | | |
| ▲ | stockresearcher 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You wouldn’t buy a loan if you thought it wasn’t going to be repaid. Eh, people do weird things all the time. Also, there is often extreme information asymmetry. |
|
| |
| ▲ | to11mtm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ehhhh? I guess, maybe, but perhaps the risk that GP is commenting on is that it could be it's own form of Juicing. I do sincerely doubt, even with the big shifts that AI enables to have companies 'move away' from Oracle, that Oracle will default. On the other hand, There's still an elevated chance of decline. IOW, Those stocks might move from pension type plans to different baskets as a result, however there is a non-negligible risk of some (not total!) loss in the 5-10 year term. Will add, I would -hope- that the same pension rules around selling questionable stocks, would also have rules limiting what level of exploitation is possible. |
| |
| ▲ | quickthrowman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | s/stock/bonds Equity shares do not have ratings, bonds have ratings. Everything else is correct, if their bond ratings slip one more level they will be rated junk which may force some holders to liquidate if they’re not allowed to hold junk bonds. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You could have made a lot of money betting against Ed Zitron over the past few years. He has predicted 12 of the last 0 AI market crashes. Of course past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say. | | |
| |
| ▲ | VirusNewbie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But if Oracle crashes and burns, is that going to tank the whole industry, or is it more likely that the bigger players just eat it up and take its customer? | | |
| ▲ | dofm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oracle is a really serious problem, because they actually are too big to fail. Nobody can take Oracle's core business that quickly. So multiple governments, internationally, are going to have to step in to preserve the various outposts of Oracle that keep them and major organisations running. Those bits could be sold off to different global consulting firms, I suspect. (But aren't those global consulting firms also going to be freaked out about their own AI risks? And what does the whole AI-assisted coding thing do to a sober assessment of what all of Oracle's global business is worth? Lots of unanswered questions) Also that is not the AI data centre bits; those will have to be chopped off and dumped. If that doesn't seriously spook the markets — a company as well-known and formerly blue-chip as Oracle, needing an international bailout — then it would be kind of surprising. | | |
| ▲ | projektfu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think liquidation would be unlikely. Restructuring would be more likely. Like as happens with airlines from time to time. | | |
| ▲ | coredog64 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Everyone is salivating at the prospect of One Rich A-hole Called Larry Ellison getting his come-uppance, but this is the correct take. Oracle without cloud is still a profitable (if much smaller) business that can continue on for quite a while. Larry (along with everyone else holding $ORCL) gets hosed, but corporations will still continue to get extortion requests couched as "opportunities to license Java 8" | | |
| ▲ | SaltyBackendGuy 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't see a world where Larry gets financially hosed. The whole system is setup to protect him, there will be a parachute. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | intuitionist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oracle’s customers/counterparties aren’t really at risk of becoming unsecured creditors in a bankruptcy situation though, so there’s no contagion risk, so “too big to fail” does not mean what it means when you’re talking about a systemically important financial institution. | |
| ▲ | rhdunn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, like what happened in the 2008 financial crisis where governments had to step in to save the banks as people defaulted on housing payments due to high mortgages. Oracle is already close to being classified as junk and reaching a tipping point. If/when that happens it is unclear what affect that will have on the markets on companies invested in AI datacenters with Oracle, and other companies that Larry Ellison and other Oracle investors own shares in. | | |
| ▲ | dofm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes — I think the thrust of it is that Oracle is unusual because all of their risk is on their books, right? They aren't using SPVs. So it's much clearer. So the worry is that it makes it clear that the unexamined risk in the SPVs has a lot less light shed on it. (ETA: that article suggests Oracle is using SPVs) |
| |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is oracle too big to fail? I mean yes, there are key contractors for certian things, but depending on the structure they can be chapter 11'd to yeet that debt. Of course junking all those bonds would cause a crisis. | | |
| ▲ | stackskipton 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their software is embedded into so many governments and Fortune 500s. It also makes them unlikely to go completely bankrupt but just Chapter 11, reorganize and sell off those parts. | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Massively not an expert, but at that level, things are not a binary "good/bad investment". Financial institutions have policies regarding finely sliced debt types, ratios, risks, lengths, sectors, etc. I personally think it's all hugely overcomplicating things but that's the way modern world works. (until it every now and then, on regular intervals, doesn't:) | |
| ▲ | NoboruWataya 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The short answer is to free up money to make other investments. The longer answer is that banks generally have policies about how concentrated they can be in individual borrowers, industry sectors, geographies, etc. That is why you rarely see a single bank take all of a very large corporate loan. They syndicate it out. | |
| ▲ | baq 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Banks like good investments, but they like being paid fees more | |
| ▲ | killingtime74 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They make money as middlemen, not the ultimate holders of debt. |
|