|
I have been writing about the Credit Default Swaps (CDS) ticking time bomb
for a long time. In Who's
Holding The Bag? I compared Warren Buffet's position to Greenspan's. Here
is Greenspan's position: "Perhaps the clearest evidence of the perceived
benefits that derivatives have provided is their continued spectacular growth." Buffett's
take is quite different of course.
Discussion of Credit Default Swaps is finally hitting mainstream press, including
the New York Times. Before we take a look, let's recap exactly what a CDS is.
Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
A Credit Default Swap is a bet between two parties on whether or not a company
will default on its bonds. A CDS investor is therefore making essentially the
bet as the corporate bond investor. The difference being the counterparty is
not a company issuing bonds but a third party willing to speculate on the outcome.
Credit Default Swaps are often used in lieu of corporate bonds when a fund
manager can not find enough bonds of the right duration for a company in which
they want to invest. In that case, if a hedge fund or other party wants to
make a bet as to whether or not a particular company will default, all it has
to do is find a suitable counterparty such as another hedge fund, a broker/dealer,
or an insurance company, etc. to take the other side of the trade. In a typical
CDS, the parties agree to swap cash flows so that one party gets a large payoff
if the company defaults within a set period of time, while the counterparty
gets periodic payments as long as the company does not default.
In theory, CDSs should trade in tandem with corporate bonds. Then again, there
is theory and there is practice. One reason they may not trade in tandem is
due to the fact that CDS trades are party-to-party deals that are by their
very nature extremely illiquid. There is also a huge anomaly because these
derivatives are not marked to market as a general rule. Book value can dramatically
overstate open market value.
Credit Default Swap Tsunami
On February 11 2008 I mentioned the $45 Trillion CDS market in Credit
Default Swap Tsunami Approaches. Inquiring minds may wish to take a look.
Today, the New York Times is writing Arcane
Market Is Next to Face Big Credit Test.
Few Americans have heard of credit default swaps, arcane financial instruments
invented by Wall Street about a decade ago. But if the economy keeps slowing,
credit default swaps, like subprime mortgages, may become a household term.
Since 2000, [the market for CDS securities] has ballooned from $900 billion
to more than $45.5 trillion -- roughly twice the size of the entire United
States stock market.

No one knows how troubled the credit swaps market is, because, like the
now-distressed market for subprime mortgage securities, it is unregulated.
But because swaps have proliferated so rapidly, experts say that a hiccup
in this market could set off a chain reaction of losses at financial institutions,
making it even harder for borrowers to get loans that grease economic activity.
An inkling of trouble emerged in a recent report from the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, a federal banking regulator. It warned that
a significant increase in trading in swaps during the third quarter of last
year "put a strain on processing systems" used by banks to handle these trades
and make sure they match up.
And last week, the American International Group said that it had incorrectly
valued some of the swaps it had written and that sharp declines in some of
these instruments had translated to $3.6 billion more in losses than the
company had previously estimated. Its stock dropped 12 percent on the news
but edged up in the days after.
My Comment: I talked about AIG at length in Credit
Default Swap Tsunami Approaches
In a credit default swap, two parties enter a private contract in which
the buyer of protection agrees to pay the seller premiums over a set period
of time; the seller pays only if a particular credit crisis occurs, like
a default. These instruments can be sold, on either end of the contract,
by the insurer or the insured.
But during the credit market upheaval in August, 14 percent of trades in
these contracts were unconfirmed, meaning one of the parties in the resale
transaction was unidentified in trade documents and remained unknown 30 days
later. In December, that number stood at 13 percent. Because these trades
are unregulated, there is no requirement that all parties to a contract be
told when it is sold.
Because these contracts are sold and resold among financial institutions,
an original buyer may not know that a new, potentially weaker entity has
taken over the obligation to pay a claim.

My Comment: No one knows who the ultimate guarantor of these contracts is.
I have stated on many occasions that it just might be "Madame Merriweather's
Mudhut Malaysia" or some obscure hedge fund that may not be in business tomorrow.
Credit default swaps were invented by major banks in the mid-1990s as a
way to offset risk in their lending or bond portfolios. At the outset, each
contract was different, volume in the market was small and participants knew
whom they were dealing with.
Years of a healthy economy and few corporate defaults led many banks to
write more credit insurance, finding it a low-risk way to earn income because
failures were few.
My Comment: This is exactly what happened in the subprime market. Continually
rising prices made it seem like there was no risk in the mortgage business.
There were proclamations that housing was "A totally New Paradigm", from economists
at major firms. See Housing
Bottom Nowhere in Sight.
Just as housing became a one way bet, so did bets on corporate bonds. Things
got totally insane when the credit markets allowed interest on bonds to be
paid not with cash but with issuance of still more debt. Debt was paid back
with more debt! See Toggle
Bonds - Yet Another High Wire Act.
Everyone was partying without any worries because defaults on corporate bonds
were low. There was a mad rush to write insurance. Ambac and MBIA wanted in
on the act too. And by guaranteeing derivatives both now appear headed for
bankruptcty.
Speculators have also flooded into the credit insurance market recently
because these securities make it easier to bet on the health of a company
than using corporate bonds.
Both factors have resulted in a market of credit swaps that now far exceeds
the face value of corporate bonds underlying it. Commercial banks are among
the biggest participants -- at the end of the third quarter of 2007, the
top 25 banks held credit default swaps, both as insurers and insured, worth
$14 trillion, the currency office said, up $2 trillion from the previous
quarter.
JPMorgan Chase, with $7.8 trillion, is the largest player; Citibank and
Bank of America are behind it with $3 trillion and $1.6 trillion respectively.
In 2000, $900 billion of credit insurance contracts changed hands. Since
then, the face value of the contracts outstanding has doubled every year
as new contracts have been written. In the first six months of 2007, the
figure rose 75 percent; the market now dwarfs the value of United States
Treasuries outstanding.
The potential for problems in sizing up the financial health of buyers of
these securities leads to questions about how these insurance contracts are
being valued on banks' books. A bank that has bought protection to cover
its corporate bond exposure thinks it is hedged and therefore does not write
off paper losses it may incur on those bond holdings. If the party who sold
the insurance cannot pay on its claim in the event of a default, however,
the bank's losses would have to be reflected on its books.
My Comment: There is simply no way those derivatives are marked to market.
AIG told investors in December that it estimated valuation losses on its credit
default swaps for October and November at just over $1bn. AIG has scrapped
the adjustment because market conditions mean it cannot "reliably quantify" the
figure.
One of the challenges facing participants in the credit default swap market
is that the market value amount of the contracts outstanding far exceeds
the $5.7 trillion of the corporate bonds whose defaults the swaps were created
to protect against.
My Comment: There is approximately $1 trillion in swaps bet on the success
or failure of GM when the entire market cap of GM is a mere $15 billion.
Typically, settling the agreements has required the delivery of defaulted
bonds if the insurance buyer wants to be fully covered. If the insurance
contracts exceed the bonds that are available for delivery, problems arise.
For example, when Delphi, the auto parts maker, filed for bankruptcy in
October 2005, the credit default swaps on the company's debt exceeded the
value of underlying bonds tenfold. Buyers of credit insurance scrambled to
buy the bonds, driving up their price to around 70 cents on the dollar, a
startlingly high value for defaulted debt.
As with other securities that trade privately and by appointment, assigning
values to credit default swaps is highly subjective. So some on Wall Street
wonder how much of the paper gains generated in these instruments by firms
and hedge funds last year will turn out to be illusory when they try to cash
them in.
"The insurance business is very difficult to quantify risk in," said Mr.
Farrell of Annaly Capital Management. "You have to really read the contract
to make sure you are covered. That is going to be the test of the market
this year. As defaults kick in and as these events unfold, you are going
to find out who has managed this well."
And who hasn't.
$45 trillion bet on swaps with the entire treasury market is a mere $4 trillion
is simply absurd. Compounding the problem is lack of knowledge abut who the
guarantors are and lack of liquidity in much of the derivatives market. There's
always plenty of liquidity when times are good. However, liquidity is a coward.
It runs and hides at the first sign of trouble.
Things are so illiquid now that even the municipal bond market has locked
up. Insurance guarantees made by Ambac and MBIA are at the heart of it. See No
Underwriter Support For Failed Muni Auctions.
Credit Default Swaps on Ambac and MBIA are trading 7 or more levels below
investment grade (deep into junk) and 12-14 levels below the AAA or AA ratings
assigned by Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P. Clearly this calls into question
the competency of the rating agencies.
Banks and brokerages are unwilling to commit capital and who can blame them?
- No one knows what anything is really worth because there is no market at
all for some of these securities.
- Banks and brokerage houses are afraid of a downgrade of Ambac and MBIA
because it might require as much as $200 Billion more in capital to be raised.
- Mark to fantasy models have too much stuff on the books at unrealistic
prices.
- No one trusts the ratings put out by Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
- Fears of counterparty failures are in everyone's minds.
Credit default swaps are going to blow sky high. If 10% of credit default
swaps blow up, it would wipe out $4.5 trillion in capital. A mere 1% hit would
wipe out $450 billion. We don't know when, but we do know the fuse is lit.
|