The End of CDS?

| Wed Jul. 15, 2009 7:02 AM PDT

Do you think the country would be better off if credit default swaps were banned?  Apparently so does someone in the House, who inserted language into the Waxman-Markey climate bill that would outlaw them.  The intent of the language, apparently, is to ban "naked swaps"; that is, to allow people to buy CDS insurance only on credit instruments that they themselves own.  But the actual language goes further.  Zach Carter reports:

Today, if a bank is worried that a debtor might default on a loan, it can still go to a CDS issuer like American International Group Inc. and buy insurance on that debt. But completely unrelated firms with no interest in the underlying loan can also go to AIG and bet that the debt will not be repaid. This kind of bet is known as a "naked swap" and, by 2007, the market for naked swaps was completely out of control. The notional value of the CDS market had exploded to over $62 trillion, according to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, well in excess of the entire global economic output for a full year.

"Let's say there's $1 trillion worth of obligations in the economy. You can use CDS to create $5 trillion worth of additional obligations," said Joseph Pastore III, a managing partner with the Fox Rothschild LLP law firm who works with CDS. "When you melt it all down, and there's only $1 trillion worth of cash and $5 trillion worth of obligations, it causes absolute economic devastation."

Here's the key passage from Waxman-Markey, buried on page 1,070 of the 1,428-page bill introduced in the Senate on July 6:

[Blah blah blah....]

"Clearly, the intent was to limit the multiplier effect of CDS by requiring only those parties with a risk to be able to insure the risk," Pastore told SNL.

But the restrictions apply to "any person" who would "enter into" a CDS contract, not merely to any company that would purchase one. That means banks are allowed to hedge risks by purchasing CDS, but CDS issuers like AIG are actually forbidden from selling them. When AIG offers insurance protection, AIG is not hedging anything; it's just making a speculative bet that a certain debt will not be repaid. In practice, then, Waxman-Markey would ban any credit default swap whatsoever, hedge or bet.

"A literal reading of it would prevent anyone from entering into a CDS contract, because the party that owns the underlying instrument needs to find somebody else to enter into the swap agreement with," Pastore told SNL.

I assume this language will get cleaned up, and even if it doesn't the courts will likely rule that "enter into" merely means "buy."  But maybe not!  Maybe Waxman-Markey will obliterate the CDS market entirely.  Stay tuned.

Continues Below

Continued From Above

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Do the math

Lets do the math.

CDS market = Credit Default Swaps market = mechanism allowing investment bankers to get obscenely rich with no risk because they are too big to fail.

So, taking your original expression

"Maybe Waxman-Markey will obliterate the CDS market entirely."

and substituting in for "CDS market"

"mechanism allowing investment bankers to get obscenely rich with no risk because they are too big to fail."

we get the expression

""Maybe Waxman-Markey will obliterate the mechanism allowing investment bankers to get obscenely rich with no risk because they are too big to fail entirely."

Granted the grammar is not perfect but I think you can do the math.

My response? Snort. Pull the other one.

Tripp

I wonder what other

I wonder what other non-cap/trade matters Waxman added to his little piece of legislation.

I may not like CDS or any of

I may not like CDS or any of the financial shenanigans, but really, is banning them via Waxman-Markey a good thing?

Maybe Waxman-Markey will

Maybe Waxman-Markey will obliterate the [speculative] CDS market entirely.
Thunderous applause, the crowd goes wild, the earth shakes. I wish. Now all we need is iron-bound language is keep the financial weasels, wolverines and Tasmanian Devils from merely re-inventing CDS under another name.

Not OT

No outrage on the Goldman-Sachs profits? Maybe people are just coming to accept that we have "government of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks".

From http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=07&year=...

In addition to the $10 billion that Goldman borrowed through the TARP, it also borrowed $28 billion that was guaranteed by the FDIC. In addition, it likely borrowed substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars from the Fed's special lending facilities, although the Fed will not disclose how much Goldman borrowed. And, Goldman was given more than 12 billion taxpayer dollars through AIG.

Trippp forgot something

I like his post, but he didn't think of something. CDS's were also the vehicle for lots of people getting wiped out, then bailed out. (AIG, I'm looking at you). Basically, if one side is getting obscenely rich, the other side is getting wiped out. Selling naked CDS' without sufficient hedging is actually what got us into this mess.

It's kind of like trying to put down a huge bet on the big game with your bookie at the last minute. Bookies ought to, and usually do, stay away from that kind of thing, there's no way to lay it off, and no way to pay off if if it wins. Sometimes they do take the big bet, and sometimes it ruins them. That's what we can't afford. But its harder to write rules about this than just banning them entirely.

Blame Obama and Geithner, not the CDS

Don't blame the poor CDS, it is merely a vehicle that allows a investor to hedge against the risk of a company defaulting. Not particularly exotic or hard to understand and very useful if employed properly. They should, however, be treated as a form of insurance by regulators.

Blame Obama and Geithner, however, for covering dollar--for-dollar the CDS contracts written by AIG in order to bail out Goldman Sachs. CDSs don't bail out institutions, people do.

For a second I thought you

For a second I thought you meant Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Doesn't matter. Isn't going to happen.

...

This is certainly the way to go. There was no way that when a downturn happened that any insurer of these defaults was going to be able to pay! It was ridiculous. Because most defaults happen together, that meant that AIG et al were on the hook for far more value at a time than little bits and pieces like car insurance. Not all cars suddenly stop working at once, you know.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Photo Essays

When you dial a 1-900 number, who picks up the phone?
Meet the KKK's seamstress of hate couture.
The other side of Gitmo.
A photographer’s year at Angola Prison.