Yana iya zama mai sauƙi ga mutum ya yi jayayya cewa idan manya maza (da mata) suna farin cikin yin caca a kan alkiblar ƙimar riba, ƙarfin kasuwar gidaje ta Amurka, da kuma wanda zai, da wanda ba zai yi nasara ba a duniyar kamfanoni (misali tare da Credit Default Swaps), to ya kamata a bar su su ci gaba da abin da suke yi. Bayan haka koyaushe akwai wanda zai ci da wanda zai yi asara, kuma watakila wanda ya yi asara zai koyi daga kuskurensa ya dawo a matsayin mutum mafi kyau. Kamar mai caca wanda koyaushe yake faɗuwa, wanda kullum yakan dawo yana jaraba amma yana fatan samun babban riba, zato shi ne cewa kasuwanni suna da inganci kuma waɗanda suka yi asara za su biya cikakken abin da suke bin su a kan lokaci, kamar yadda masu nasara za su karɓi ribansu cikin farin ciki. Wannan ra'ayi abin dariya ne, domin yana kasa lura da rashin ingancin waɗanda suka shiga abin da ya fi ƙarfinsu, waɗanda za su yi wahala wajen biyan bashinsu, da waɗanda asarar caca ta kassara su gaba ɗaya. Wannan rikici ba shi da bambanci da haka.

It would be easy for one to argue that if grown men (and women) are happy to gamble on the direction of interest rates, the strength of the US housing market and over who will, and who will not fail in the corporate world (for example with Credit Default Swaps), they should be allowed to get on with it. After all there is always a winner and a loser, and maybe the loser will learn from his mistakes and come back a better person. Like the perpetually failing gambler who always returns addicted yet expectant for a big payout, the assumption was that the markets are efficient and losers will pay out fully and on time just as the winners will gleefully pocket their gains. This is an absurd notion, which fails to take note of the inefficiency of those that get in out of their depth who will struggle to meet their debts and those that are completely wiped out by their gambling losses. This crisis is no different.

Mun ga kamfanoni suna sanya "kamfanin" nasu, ko kuma a ce daidai, suna yin caca da kuɗin aro (lamuni) har ninki da yawa na kamfanin. Duk da rundunonin masu lissafi, masu kula da haɗari da ma'aikatan bin doka, manyan bankunan duniya ba su hango abin da zai faru ba, suka shiga cikin guguwar. Saboda mafarkin ci gaba da tara riba a kan caca mafi girma da haɗari, sun ɗauka cewa ba za su taɓa yin asara ba. Kuma daga shugabannin kamfanoni har zuwa ƙananan 'yan kasuwa, dukkansu suna da laifi a kan sakamakon. Duk da haka, sai dai 'yan kaɗan, ba su aikata wani abu da ya saɓa wa doka ba. Tsarin da dokar sun amince da abin da suka yi. Asalin matsalar tana cikin tsarin (Jari-hujja) da hanyarsa ta mu'amala da caca gabaɗaya. Dukkan Royal Bank of Scotland da Barclays, manyan bankuna biyu kuma mafi daraja, an ruwaito kwanan nan cewa kowannensu yana riƙe (bisa ga rahotanni da asusun da suka bayar) da dalar Amurka tiriliyan 2.4 na Credit Default Swaps, kusan ninki biyu na jimillar Gross Domestic Product na Birtaniya. Ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa dukkansu sun kasance a tsakiyar tattaunawar ceto da gwamnatin Birtaniya, inda RBS ta faɗi.

We’ve watched companies bet “the firm”, or to be more accurate through leveraging (loans) bet many multiples of the firm. Despite armies of accountants, risk experts and compliance staff the world’s largest banks did not see it coming and walked into the storm. Blinded by dreams of constantly accumulating profits on ever larger and riskier bets they just assumed they would never lose. And from the chief executives all the way down to the traders they are all culpable for the results. Yet, with only a few exceptions, they did nothing illegal. The system and the law endorsed what they did. The heart of the problem lies with the system (Capitalism) and its approach to transactions and gambling in general. Both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays two of the largest and most prestigious banks have recently been reported to be each holding (according to their published report and accounts) $2.4 trillion dollars of Credit Default Swaps, nearly twice the size of Britain’s total Gross Domestic Product. Little wonder they have both been at the centre of bailout discussions with the British government with the RBS succumbing.

Credit default swaps (CDS) sun taka muhimmiyar rawa a cikin rikicin basussuka mai girma wanda ya kai ga Lehman Brothers neman kariya daga fatara. Hakazalika, shirin ceto gwamnati ga kamfanin inshora American International Group Inc. (AIG) ($124 biliyan kuma har yanzu ana ci gaba) da gaggawar sayar da Merryll Lynch & Co ga Bank of America, duk sun samo asali ne daga kumfar CDS. AIG ya zama babban ɗan wasa a kasuwar CDS, inda ya bar inshorar gargajiya ya koma kasuwar CDS mai ban sha'awa da ake ganin ta fi riba. A matsayinsa na babban mai sayar da CDS, da AIG ya fadi, da hakan zai haifar da asarar biliyoyin daloli a wasu bankuna da kungiyoyin kudi da yawa da suka yi ciniki da AIG, wanda zai kai su ga fadi su ma. Sarkar dominoes za ta fara aiki sosai. Lehman Brothers, duk da tarihinsa da matsayinsa a Wall Street, an ɗauke shi a matsayin wanda za a iya rasawa, aka barshi ya fadi. Duk da haka, a wurare da dama an soki faduwarsa saboda ya taka muhimmiyar rawa a rikicin da ake ciki yanzu.

Credit default swaps played a major role in the mushrooming credit crisis which led to Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection. Similarly the government rescue plan for insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) ($124 billion and counting) and the emergency sale of Merryll Lynch & Co to Bank of America is rooted in the CDS bubble. AIG had become a major player in the CDS market, shunning traditional insurance for the more exotic and supposedly more lucrative CDS market. As a major seller of CDSs, had AIG failed, it would have triggered many billions of dollars in losses at numerous other banks and financial groups who traded with AIG, sending them into failure as well. The domino chain would be well and truly kicked off. Lehman Brothers despite its history and standing on Wall Street was deemed expendable, and was allowed to fail. Nevertheless its failure has in many quarters been criticised because it has played a key part in the current crisis.

Ta hanyar shiga ƙarƙashin kulawar kotu don rufe kamfani (liquidation), ya ƙara bayyana girman manyan kwangiloli na derivatives da kuma hannun jarin da aka yi amfani da bashi (leveraged positions) da Lehman ya riƙe. Har yanzu akwai kwangiloli miliyan 1.5 na derivatives na Lehman da wata babbar tawagar lauyoyi ke ci gaba da aiki a kansu. Haka kuma ya haifar da "credit event" a kan Lehman, biye da irin waɗannan abubuwan da suka faru a lokacin da gwamnatin Amurka ta karɓi ikon Freddie Mac da Fannie Mae, manyan kamfanonin jinginar gidaje na Amurka. Waɗannan "credit events" sun fito da rauni da rashin tabbas na tsarin hada-hadar kuɗi a fili, kuma babu wanda ya san wanda zai faɗi na gaba, ko kuma, idan asarar CDS da sauran derivatives ta yaɗu a cikin tsarin, wa zai iya biyan wa. Idan manyan bankuna, ciki har da dukkan manyan bankunan zuba jari, na iya kasancewa cikin rashin iya biyan bashi, to wa za ka amince da shi? Manyan bankunan zuba jari guda biyar na Amurka yanzu duk sun faɗi (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch) ko kuma sun watsar da tsarin kasuwancinsu, inda suka zama bankuna masu samun tallafin kuɗi na musamman da kariya daga gwamnatin Amurka (Goldman Sachs da Morgan Stanley).

By going into liquidation the full extent of its massive derivatives and leveraged positions became clearer – there is still 1.5 million Lehman derivative contracts which a large team of lawyers are struggling through. It also triggered a “credit event” over Lehman, following the credit events of the Government takeovers of the largest US mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These credit events brought the fragility of the financial system into sharp focus and no one knew who would fail next, or with such large CDS and other derivative losses washing around the system, who could pay who. If the largest of banks including all the key investment banks, were possibly insolvent who do you trust? The five core US investment banks have now all either failed (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Meryll Lynch) or abandoned their business model and become banks with access to special funding support and protections from the US government (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley).