Ok, lets’s talk credit default swaps (CDSs): why they’re so dangerous and what can be done to fix them.
At the bottom all a CDS is is "you pay me money, and if X debt defaults, I’ll make it good." In other words, it is insurance, almost the same as homeowners insurance or life insurance. And since it’s insurance it should be regulated like insurance. But it isn’t.
The reasons the CDS swap market blew up include the following:
Bad Mathematical Modeling: Credit defaults are not independent variables. That is to say, they tend to happen in clusters and they aren’t evenly spread out over a curve. The math in most CDSs seems to have assumed that they were independent variables, that they didn’t cluster and that they were evenly spread out. So when a whole pile of defaults happened all at the same time, no one was prepared.
Taking Money Early: The risk of a credit default event (ie. having to pay out) doesn’t go down significantly over its term. If you’ve sold a 10 year swap, every year does not reduce the risk by 10%, for example, because defaults cluster. Unfortunately, what issuers of CDSs were doing was booking money every year as profit, usually at an even rate. So if it’s a 10 year CDS, take 10% profit each year. Since the risk hadn’t been reduced by 10% each year (indeed had hardly been reduced at all), this meant that they were booking profit they hadn’t earned.
Undercapitalized: Folks were selling CDSs without the necessary capital. You essentially didn’t have to have any money specifically committed to paying the CDS back. It would be like me saying "sure, if fred doesn’t pay you back 100K, I’ll make it good, if you pay me 10K now". Assume I could deal with that, mind you, and so could most people who issued CDSs. But let’s say I had hundreds of those outstanding. And suddenly a whole bunch of them come in all in the same year or two. Unless I’m very well capitalized, which these folks weren’t, I’m sunk. This is implicit in the math, events will cluster on occasion. Unfortunately, years go by without a lot of defaults, and so issuers tend to think "this is free money". They also think "the government won’t let these companies fail". They aren’t always right, though right now bet 2 is a pretty good one, because governments are paralyzed by fear at what will happen in the CDS market, among others, if another Lehman goes under.
How to Fix it
As noted above, credit default swaps are actually default insurance. To fix them you just regulate them like you regulate insurance.
Require use of standardized government approved actuarial tables and models: No, you don’t get to just make it up however your employee thinks it is. As with life insurance and most other kinds of insurance, the government and probably a professional association of quants will tell you what the risks are and what models you can use. You can use a more conservative model, but not a less conservative model. You will not be allowed to do the math wrong, and yes, your math will be audited. In fact, you will be required to submit your math for approval before using it in the market.
Require Strong Reserves You must have sufficient money to cover clustered events. You will be required to keep enough assets that you can meet the calls, and things like duration matching (making sure the time period of an asset matches the time period of a risk) will be required. The exact sort of securities which can be used as reserves will be specified, you will not be allowed to use assets which are not solid as reserves. One possibility is to simply require government insurance bonds, since the fact is that if you blow it, it’s the government that is going to have to clean up.
Do Not Allow Premature Booking of Profits: You don’t get to book the profits till the risk is gone. Period.
You get audited regularly We don’t assume your quants know what they’re doing, because even if they do, you’re probably telling them to cheat, and besides, they didn’t do it right when they were trusted to do it on their own, did they?
This is no longer a very high profit business: It’s insurance now, and insurance companies shouldn’t gamble. You will be nice and stable and profitable, but not immensely profitable. Your business will be boring and secure. That’s the way it should be, so you don’t cost us trillions of dollars to bail out again.
Concluding Remarks
There are very rarely new businesses under the sun. Credit Default Swaps were and are, just insurance. We know how to regulate insurance companies and all that is required is the political will to shut down the casino. The core problem here is the same as in every other "high" finance field—a lot of people are making a lot of money on the business and they don’t want it to stop. Ultimately the real reason they made money is because when they finally took a bunch of losses the government stepped in and covered much of them. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Or "heads I win, tails the taxpayer loses."
This is equally true of most types of swaps, many of which are essentially insurance contracts. For example, an interest rate swap is insurance against a rise or fall in interest rates. As a result this model, with some modifications, can be applied to the other swaps businesses. They will become a lot less profitable and a lot less sexy and once they cost as much as they should there probably won’t be nearly as many of them. But they also won’t be so dangerous that they threaten to swamp the entire economy.



73 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
The math was completely wrong. It assumed causality when there was not any, multiplied probabilities when they were independent numbers, ignored exogenous effect (the economy), and assumed actuarial data from the old mortgage system (qualifying, ability to pay, and used these numbers on new mortgages (have a heartbeat, get a mortgage).
And I don’t believe there were any actuarial tables and models for Alt-A and sub prime. Hence the risk was incalculable (could not be calculated).
Aka Fraud.
But God forbid we hold anyone accountable,
the markets have punished them enough.
These things are for the future. For solving the current overhandg from CDSs, most will have to be nullified. Others will have to be settled for a fraction of their value. Otherwise there is not enough money around to cover what’s out there, and if I have to choose between the financial system and CDSs, I choose the financial system.
It makes me sick to my stomach that greenspan would actually use the “Who could have anticipated?” excuse.
i don’t know the percentages – but a lot of CDSs are NOT insurance, they are nothing more than gambling. if i tell ian that for a monthly premium i’ll pay if for the cost of a replacement if his house burns down, that is insurance. but if i tell elliot the same thing – that for a monthly premium i’ll pay her if ian’s house burns down then we’re just betting.
Geez, two levels of truth and one of B$.
Ian.
Synoia.
And Elliot lays out the ‘truth’ of the latest “Who could have imagined?” B$ and suffering, ‘enough’.
I think we ought to take a peak at Greenspan’s portfolio before we believe he couldn’t foresee this mess.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
If CDS are allowed to exist in the future any profits should be tied to the amortization schedules Of the mortgage. What I don’t understand is how many of these swaps were sold on the same asset?
I forecast it at the beginning of his testimony. Considered it a freebie. I’ll see if I can find the link.
waxman really should have had brooksley born (cftc), charles bowsher (the comptroller who’s name was on the 1994 gao report) and congressman ed markey at today’s hearing. they all anticipated it – more than 10 years ago.
Here it is, 10:15 ET, right as Greenspan began.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/10…..nt-1696023
Alas, the horse left the barn, donkey years ago. The point is moot. Moreover, something similar will happen not too far down the road, as no lesson was learned among any of the principals. The Fed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, et al., hoovered the bad debt with the backing of public trust and assets. The Treasury’s primary dealers are getting the best deal possible in the worst situation.
some links and bits:
markey introduced legislation in 1994 (hr4745) to provide some regulation – this was in response to the gao report. here are some bits i pulled from the executive summary of the report:
Oh bit it’s soooo exciting to talk about.
Wow. I think I actually understand this now.
Superb post, Ian.
Swamped by the swap.
1994. But “no one could have anticipated”.
ding ding ding – we have a winner
Don’t fergit the RATS, Raven, this took rats, ratous rats, rambo rats and just plain rat rats.
But alank done called the fact; not only is the horse gone, so is the barn …
Hold er Knute, she’s headed for the pea patch!
exactly!!!
off and on the past few weeks i’ve been doing some googling and have been trying to put together a time line for the decisions not to regulate cdds (am including other stuff as well). i’ve got tons of quotes like this. just one reason it’s so infuriating to hear greenspan plead ignorance.
One of the more (and there were many) dishonest moments in Greenspan’s testimony was when he tried to dump responsibility on an out of date regulatory system. First, it wasn’t that the regs were out of date. It was that they weren’t applied. Second, Greenspan was at the Fed for 18 1/2 years. If he had a problem with out of date regs, it wasn’t like he didn’t have time to inform Congress. Nor do I remember him making statements against Gramm-Bliley-Leech or the the CFMA at the time or later.
Might I suggest a “legal” solution? Selise is exactly right. CDS’s evolved from being like insurance to being pure speculation, or as s/he says, gambling. (Sorry, Selise.)
The solution is somewhat the same as what keeps you or I from taking out insurance on a dying neighbor. The law requires an “insurable interest” before enforcing an insurance policy payout. In other words, unless you own the home, or are related to the person, etc., you can’t get homeowner’s or life insurance, and the insurance company can deny payout. You can take it to court, but, guess what, you’ll lose, because the law requres “insurable interest.”
To stop rampant speculation in Credit Default Swaps, the “swapper” should have to own–or be affected by–the failure of an underlying security.
Except the insurance industry has managed to keep the Federal gummint out of regulating insurance for two centuries. Gonna take some pretty big problems to get them into it. Caw!
Damn! How the hell do I get this horse loose from the blankety-blank seed-drill before we hit the railroad tracks, it don’t look good … damned horseflies … oh lord! we’re goin’ in …
;~D
Yes, insurable interest is absolutely vital and I should have included it in my list.
IIRC, companies like Wal Mart buy life insurance on their employees. Maybe people can’t do that sort of thing, but companies may?
Yeah!!! Thank you for posting this!!!
I have one other thing to add to this Insurable Interest.
You can’t just buy life insurance on any tom dick or harry’s life. You have to have a bonafide insurable interest. You have to be a husband, wife, child or sometimes a business partner, whoever you are, you have to have something to lose if that person dies. That is why you buy life insurance.
CDS can be bought or sold by anyone. That includes people who have insider information, say the banker of the company that maybe is not doing so well and might default on its debts. Insurable interests eliminates the possibiity of people using this vehicle to make lots of money without actually doing anything except trading on insider information. We don’t want this to happen because it makes the system fundamentally unfair while also making the total market much larger than it needs to be. As the market is structured now, any debt instrument can have literally an infinite number of corresponding CDSs. As many people want to buy or sell them, they can do it. So that one company defaults on their debt and it can affect thousands of companies holding the CDSs.
That is systemic risk we cannot allow to happen.
This is why when CDSs were deregulated it wasn’t just that they were exempted from insurance laws but gaming laws too. They knew at the time that a lot of this was gambling.
As for the “insurable interest”, one of the problems with this is on the CDO side. The mortgage backed instruments were sliced and diced up through multiple iterations so that it is unclear that there is an insurable interest.
This was totally forseeable. Over a year ago I knew these CDS would take down a major firm and discussed it with folks via e-mail. And I’m not that close to it.
T-
Lots of the large companies want the Feds into regulating insurance. I actually used to work in compliance in US insurance, and dealing with 50 sets of state regs was a pain. With the exception of NY they’re pretty similar – but not entirely, and it can really trip you up. Plus they all get to audit you.
Some state insurance comissioners are jokes. But others (for example NY and Washington state, at least in my time) are definitely not. Grown insurance executives quake in fear of the NY regulator, and back in the day, Spitzer had us pretty concerned too, though in the end he didn’t get to our particular company or industry much.
well, if you’re going to give me such a nice set up *g*
first the CFMA:
November 9, 1999 – President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (Treasury, Fed, SEC, CFTC), submitted their OTC Derivatives Report to Congress. The report recommended:
this was the pwg (which i think greenspan headed) advising congress to pass a law preventing the cftc from regulating swaps (including credit default swaps).
next G-B-L:
February 23, 1999 – The Senate Banking Committee (chaired by Gramm) held a hearing on (in part) “Financial Services Legislation” with Greenspan the sole witness. From his prepared statement:
makes sense to me. but what do i know? not much – how scary is that?
Great post Ian. Thank you.
So, what should the outcome be? First they have to pay off every penny they owe on a CDS and if they can’t then they have to go to jail, right?
Can you fit all of Wall Streets big CDS sellers in one jail cell in Encino?
You need to start your opening as:
A Letter To The Next President.
a year ago i don’t think i’d heard of CDSs. just trying to play catch up here.
any suggestions on what should be done wrt CDOs (and all the weird mortgage backed securities) – both now and in the future?
This is a good thought. Insurable interest could be bonds, an accounts receivable balance or an equity hedge.
One of the multipliers of the notional amounts of these CDS is that “synthetic” debt instruments (CLOs) were constructed and carved up and securitized creating huge fees for the financial engineers that created them.
Also, worthy of note, the commercial banks (maybe 20% of the total cds market) have to report their exposure to these derivatives and approx. 85% of the swaps between them cancel each other out. So on $100B of swaps, only $15B would change hands. Now, that’s great if everyone can pay everyone, but that won’t work so good with Lehman/AIG as your counterparty.
So, its still a huge damned mess and powder keg as well. A slew of corporate defaults next year will light the fuse again.
T-
But, but, ES, corporations are ‘people’ too.
Hmmm, maybe people should become ‘corporations’, live for ever and nevah be held accountable for anything.
Can’t put a ‘corporation’ in jail or even smack its greedy little paws; nope, corporations is just about the best ‘insurance’ there is, unless Paulson doesn’t like you, why with any luck a’tall, each of us might just become “too big to fail”.
To Eureka Springs: A court would likely find that Walmart has an insurable interest in that they have an interest in a stable workforce (not having to train new people, etc.) Do they really have this insurance? Vultures.)
To Hugh: Geez, I used to securitize assets in anticipation of Chap. 11s. The CDS’s are taken out on the securitized bundles, not the individual mortgages.
Does that mean in the current situation that those who bought a CDS can see mortgages default, take their claims to the CDS sell, be rebuffed, take it to court and be rebuffed again because they have no ‘insurable interest’?
In that scenario it’s the people who paid money, perhaps for decades, who are uninsured — likely bankrupted.
Now that would be a complete abuse and unfair. It’s the one who offered the CDS who now refuses to pay who has committed the fraud and they should be required to pay in cash & jail time.
CDS Too Risky for CME Trading, Key Members Say
“Electronic trading pioneer Thomas Peterffy says a plan by CME Group
Inc. to guarantee credit- default swaps could put his entire $4 billion
company at risk.”
From here
Please don’t tell me they were really at one time regulated and some yahoos DEREGULATED them for ideological/greedy purposes?
Geez. Can you say “fraud on a massive scale”?
What you also need in addition to an insurable interest if for these derivatives to be cleared through a central house and perfectly opposed swaps should cancel each other out and disposed of via flashpaper.
No, they are a legal contract once written/sold. This concept works if you prevent them from being written/sold in the first place.
I only propose an insurable interest for prospective transactions. I think retroactive legislation (or judicial pronouncments) are almost never a good idea. I think requiring insurable interest in these securities is good, workable policy: the notion has served insurance law for hundreds of years, keeping the insurance industry from speculative meltdowns such as the one we are experiencing.
Yes but this was in the context of an insurable interest. How can you insure an instrument if you don’t know what it contains because it is the sixth or seventh time the original securitized instrument has been split up and sold and there is no direct filiation anymore to that original instrument or the mortgages underlying it?
in the ’90s the CFTC proposed considering regulating them – put out a proposal for public discussion with ideas like requiring reserves and contract transparency. the fed (greenspan), the treasury (rubin) and the sec (levitt – although he now says he regrets his role) jumped all over born (who was head at the time and was pushing for regulation to be considered). ended up pushing her out and with congress got laws passed to prevent the CFTC from regulating CDSs.
the story is more complicated than that – but in essence i think there were very few who called for regulation. the bipartisan consensus (between congress and the clinton administration) was to prevent regulation.
§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
“the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
BUT, it didn’t used to be this way !!
oops.
should be:
u nailed it.
There are two things that need to be done. The first is that the original lending institution has to keep some of the underlying risk. What happened this time around is that banks and mortgage writers spun increasingly crappy loans down the road to others and were able to forget about them. The second is that there can’t be this endless dilution of risk of ownership of the underlying asset on the other end either. There have to be strict limits on how many times a CDO can be repackaged and there have to be laws that tie the end holder of the pieces both to the risks and benefits of the original asset.
i’m not sure i see the benefit of all the slicing and dicing. is there any reason that if mortgages are going to be bundled and sold that they are not cut into little pieces with no one even knowing who really owns the mortgage (in case, for example, there is a need to renegotiate the contract)?
but if the originating institution is going to keep some percentage on the their books, i don’t see how to keep the mortgage intact.
CDO Primer
thanks. here’s my offering in return:
Structured Finance Glossary – Making Sense of the Alphabet Soup
Well this gets back to things like warrants that the originating lender would have to hold on the underlying asset.
There really isn’t much use to slice and dice these instruments multiple times. It dilutes risk to the holders and increases fees to the writers. I don’t see either as particularly good. If there is some risk, then buyers might be a little more careful.
And just for fun, there are ‘synthetic CDO’s‘
Thanks; did you get the free trial or did you subscribe?
The CDS were invented so that in the event a security fails, the CDS functions like insurance. Consider the case of MBS (mortgage-backed securities). Mortgages–hundreds or thousands–are sliced and diced and bundled, covered by a securitization agreement, all so they can be sold as securities. The CDS is then slapped onto the securitized bundle, often to raise the rating to AAA so they can be sold to municipalities, trustees, etc.
Now part of what happened is that a pile of shitty mortgages was somehow supposed to be magically transformed by being bundled together. In reality, the bundles were no better bets than the sum of their (shitty) parts. Part of the reason they could get away with this is the CDS was supposed to function like insurance. But it wasn’t just the original MBS. Sometimes a bond is sold from a brokerage house that is holding these securitized mortgages. My guess is that a court would find both the MBS and the bond have an insurable interest.
The problem has been, though, that in the absence of an insurable interest requirement, people that own NEITHER the BOND NOR the MBS have bought CDS’s as speculation. That is why the CDS market is 60 some trillion, where the real estate market in the U.S. is 7 trillion.
Hugh, I think the point is that the failure of a security is what triggers the “cashing in” of the CDS. The swapper should have to have an interest in the underlying security which triggers the swap, either the bond or the MBS.
To MarkH: Maybe we should re-consider whether the bailout should include aiding “naked” speculators who invested in CDS with no interest and inadequate capitalization. Something to sleep on.
free – there was a message at the top of the page that because of the current crisis they were making lots of the premium stuff available for everyone who signed up (for the free subscription). so i did. hope it lasts (the info, not the crisis)
i am never going to get this straight in my head. damn. before this my idea of wall street was limited to signing up for a 401k for a few years, putting it in a couple of equity index funds and then not looking at it unless i had too – seriously, years would go by.
The point that I am trying to make is that there wasn’t a single CDO on which a CDS was written. Both the CDOs and CDSs then went through multple subsequent iterations. Not only could those without an interest take out a CDS (naked CDSs) but the holder of the CDS could take out a CDS on the CDS. On the other side, CDOs could be aggregated, then fractionated, and spun off into new CDOs. This could happen multiple times as well and at each juncture CDSs and counter-CDSs could be taken out. The result was moral hazard and no real link back to the original mortgages or way to know what the real risk was.
As always, thanks Ian.
digg
What is truly stupid about the “deregulation” is that the participants in their eagerness to keep the new lucrative opportunities secretly rewarding and thus avoiding scrutinization trapped themselves in an enterprise without reasonable performance data. It’s one thing to avoid rules and regulations, it is another to totally blindside yourself to the scope and scale of the business as it exploded out of sight.
A few random observations that belong here.
A 60+ trillion market with no regulation is the very definition of insanity.
Why Congress is fiddling as the hedge funds continue to burn is way beyond me. In today’s environment it’s far, far easier to make money from fear than greed, so no matter what people say I’m convinced in their last ditch efforts to make money before the inevitable sunlight (regulation) shines into their darkened lairs, they are shorting the hell out of any stock they can get their hands on from 3-4pm everyday.
Until Congress grows a pair and regulates these a-holes, the volatility in the equity markets will continue, and the average investor (who is essential to orderly markets) will stay on the sidelines.
How Greenspan can go before Waxman’s committee today and say he didn’t see this coming is bullshit.
Waxman pointed out he had over 200 Ph.D.’s on a staff of 400 at the Federal Reserve, but he had no clue.
Greenspan even offered he still doesn’t exactly know what went wrong.
Really?
Spending a couple of days around here would be a good start.
I’m a little confused still. If the CDS’s and CDO’s don’t have any discernible link to the underlying original assets, then just how exactly was anybody supposed to know when such an asset defaulted, and would then trigger the payout?
True the banks have to keep it on their books but also the model whereas the mortgage brokers are paid a fat fee to sell unsuspecting home buyers a loan that is more expensive than they qualify for has got to stop.
This part of the puzzle is very obvious. The mortgage brokers got paid more money the more likely the loan was to default. The riskier the loan the fatter the commission.
If mortgage brokers are to exist, they must be licensed and have a fiduciary duty to their client the home purchaser not the financial institution paying them a kickback.
The fees should be standardized. Oh and all the brokers who falsified mortgage documets get fined and put in jail and can never be licensed.
The credit default swaps on Lehman Bros. debt settled this week. There were $72bn outstanding. The debt sold for $.08 on the dollar, so the protection sellers were on the hook for substantially the whole loss. The linked article says the total cash necessary to settle all of it was $5.2bn.
The loss couldn’t be much worse. The relationship between the notional amounts outstanding and the amount necessary to settle suggests that the gross problem two orders of magnitude smaller than the notional amount outstanding.
I am willing to bet (here’s my $100), that EVERY SISA (Stated) loan app was fraudulent. Every one.
As for vengence, Here’s out idea:.
http://agonist.org/synoia/2008…..ry_lawsuit
It names the plaintiffs, the defendants, the legal theory, the penalties and how to fund the lawsuit. Could some of the fine legal mide at FDL take a look at it?
And we’re beginning to assemble the support for the legal theory, and the chain of evidence.
I’m way into EPU land, but I’ve got to ask this very naive question. If I have a mortgage, what prevents me (or my confederate) from buying a swap on that mortgage, or to or three or ten or 100? And, what if I then default on that mortgage? Does my confederate get 100 times the difference between the face value of that mortage and the present value of my house?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Hugh: I think you have a valid point. The “insurable interest” issue does not solve all problems with CDS’s, only those tied to speculation. The problem you mention is what I call “chaining,” where a security is insured by a CDS and that CDS is insured against loss by another CDS and that CDS may be insured by a still further CDS. All have “insurable interests” but I am convinced that under such circumstances we would still be building a house of cards.
What would prevent such a mess from being a house of cards are the things that Ian talks about: adequate capitalization, regulation, etc. They all, I think, must fit together.
Another problem I see that happens in the event of systemic breakdown is the presence of those securitization agreements, especially those for Mortgage-backed securities. So many times in the last year, I, as an attorney, tried to renegotiate a home loan, only to find that the creditor was unable to do so because the loan was part of a package and the docs that created the package instructed the holder to foreclose, foreclose, foreclose. No rational argument for abeyance would do, as the holder felt bound by contract to continue. Common sense was totally taken out of the picture.