Tuesday, May 19, 2009

How Do Credit Default Swaps Factor into the Current Crisis

As mentioned previously, a CDS is a popular type of an unfunded credit derivative. This alone, may not have been a large problem. It was the combination of a number of factors, including something known as a collateralized debt obligation (hereinafter CDO). A CDO is generally defined as “an investment-grade security backed by a pool of bonds, loans and other assets.”[i] It is thought of as a type of asset-backed security (hereinafter ABS) that derives its value from a set of underlying assets.

Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2006, the new CDOs backed by asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities grew increasingly exposed to subprime mortgage bonds. As individuals began to default at an increasing rate, the CDOs backed by these subprime mortgage bonds were downgraded in their rating and suffered large losses. This effect is commonly referred to as the “subprime mortgage crisis” because it signaled a beginning of the general downturn of the credit market. This downward trend has, in effect, limited the amount of mortgage credit that was generally available to homeowners. During this period, CDOs began to and continued purchasing portions of mortgage bonds that were much riskier but still had investment-grade ratings (we will revisit this in a subsequent section).

The CDO issuers were able to turn their risky mortgages and bonds into investment-grade “paper” by combining it with other assets. They then were able to sell these CDOs to investors on the open market. CDOs were attractive to buyers because they were investment-grade, and a higher rate of return then other “securities.” However, even while these CDOs were rated at investment grade, there is always some risk associated and that is where CDSs came into play.

CDSs were marketed by AIG’s Financial Products (hereinafter AIGFP) division in London as a form of “insurance” that would protect the holder of the CDO in the event of default. The man credited with inventing this use of the CDS is Joseph Cassano, a man who worked for Mike Milken (otherwise known as the Junk Bond King) in the Eighties. In theory, there is nothing wrong with using CDSs in this manner.

This method of using CDSs was designed so that investors who held CDOs would pay a premium to AIGFP, and in exchange, AIGFP agreed to cover the loss if the mortgage-backed CDO defaulted. This effectively moved the risk off of the table for investors holding a large amount of mortgage-backed CDOs, creating a boom in the market.

Remember however, that the seller of the CDS does not have to actually demonstrate that it can pay out on the guarantee. This allows sellers of CDSs to sell countless amounts of CDSs without having a single real asset to honor the obligation. Also, neither party actually holds the underlying loan, thereby allowing the CDS seller to sell “protection” to multiple parties for the same underlying mortgage.

As long as the probability of a default on the underlying security remained relatively unlikely, all parties involved could continue to collect high amounts of money. This was a win-win situation, until defaults became increasingly more common and AIG was expected to “payout” on the insurance.

And what did we expect when lending institutions were permitted to merge with commercial banks as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, making lending money in a predatory manner increasingly more common. Even individuals who had no income, no job, and no assets were permitted to borrow money and were actually expected not to default. NINJA[ii] loans became increasingly more accessible to borrowers, who then had the money to purchase a home they actually could not afford. What did we really expect to happen? We bet big, rolled the dice, and lost it all.



[ii] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/ninja-loan.asp “A slang term for a loan extended to a borrower with "no income, no job and no assets". Whereas most lenders require the borrower to show a stable stream of income or sufficient collateral, a NINJA loan ignores the verification process.”

What is a Credit Default Swap?

Perhaps a question that some executives, politicians, investors and all taxpayers should have asked significantly sooner, is what is a credit default swap? In it’s simplest form, a credit default swap (hereinafter CDS) is a contract in which one party (the buyer) makes a series of small payments to another party (the seller). In return for the small payments, the buyer receives a lump sum if the instrument goes into default. Generally, CDSs are done with a bond or a loan as a credit instrument, and it is not necessary for the buyer to actually own the underlying bond or loan.[i]

Some have defined a CDS as being a credit derivative contract between two parties. [ii][iii] A credit derivative then, is defined as an instrument where the value is derived from the amount of risk on the underlying loan or bond. The reason that credit derivatives are popular is because the risk is shifted to an entity that is separate from the transaction. The third party or other entity is referred to as the reference entity and can be any institution or organization that has incurred some form of debt.[iv][v]The two parties to the contracts (buyer and seller) are agreeing to a form of protection against a risk associated with the reference entity. These risks can include: 1) bankruptcy; 2) payment default; 3) obligation default; 4) restructuring; and 5) where an obligation will be accelerated.[vi]

There are two major kinds of credit derivatives-unfunded credit derivatives and funded credit derivatives. An unfunded credit derivative can be defined as a contract between two parties in which each party has a responsibility to make payments without resorting to a use of other assets.[vii] A funded credit derivative, on the other hand, is where the party that is assuming the risk makes initial payments that are used to “settle” any potential events (such as default).[viii]

A CDS then, as mentioned previously, is a form of credit derivative. More specifically, it is a form of an unfunded credited derivative product. Some have likened a CDS to a form of insurance, and while there are some similarities between the two, there are also some significant differences. For example, the seller does not need to be a regulated entity; the seller is not required to maintain any reserves to pay off the buyers; and the buyer of a CDS does not necessarily have to own the underlying security[ix]. Another significant difference is the nature of how the parties manage the risk. Insurance companies or agents manage risk by setting “loss reserves” (the amount of money in the pool to pay off buyers upon the happening of a stated event) based on the Law of Large Numbers (hereinafter LLN)[x] whereas those who deal in CDS manage their risk in large part by hedging with other dealers in the bond market.

While a large majority of the public still believes that CDSs are a new phenomenon, they were actually invented by team working for JPMorgan Chase in 1997.[xi][xii] The CDS was created in large part to raise more capital, and were designed to shift the risk of obligation or payment default to a third party.[xiii] As mentioned previously, CDSs became largely freed from pervasive regulation by both the SEC and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (hereinafter CFTC) with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (an act also credited with the Enron loophole), when legislation was passed that ruled that credit default swaps were neither gaming nor a security and were therefore not subject to those constraints. 

In summation, if a CDS is not gambling, and is also not a security, it is not regulated as such.



[i] “In a credit swap, two parties agree to exchange cash flows based on the cash flows of a reference asset (e.g., the bonds of a risky borrower) and a reference rate (e.g., a comparable government security), or on the occurrence of a particular credit event.” Partnoy, Frank “The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets?: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies” Washington University Law Quarterly Fall 1999. 77 Wash. U.L.Q.619, 677.

[ii] CFA Institute. (2008). Derivatives and Alternative Investments. Page G-11. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

[iii] “More specifically, a credit default swap is a bilateral financial contract in which one counterparty (the protection buyer) pays a periodic fee, typically expressed in fixed basis points as a percentage of the notional amount, in return for a floating payment contingent on the default of one or more third-party reference credits. This floating payment is designed to mirror the loss incurred by creditors of the reference credit in the event of default, and usually is calculated as the fall in price of a reference security below par at some pre-designated point in time after the reference credit has defaulted.” Partnoy, 1999, at 677.

[iv] Das, Satyajit (2005). Credit Derivatives: CDOs and Structured Credit Products, 3rd Edition. Wiley.

[vi] This is not an exhaustive list. There are other types of “events” that the parties to the contact can agree to include in the transaction.

[vii] Dominic O’Kane. “Credit Derivatives Explained”. Lehman Brothers, posted on Simon Fraser University website at http://www.sfu.ca/~sp6048/Reading/LEH%20O’Kane%20Credit%20Derivatives%20Explained%200301.pdf.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Mark Garbowski (2008-10-24). “United States: Credit Default Swaps: A Brief Insurance Primer” at http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=68548.

[x] Please see http://www.probabilitytheory.info/topics/the_law_of_large_numbers.htm for a brief definition of the Law of Large Numbers generally.

[xi] David Teather. “The woman who built financial ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction.’” The Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/20/wallstreet.banking?gusrc=rss&feed=business.

[xii] William Engdahl, “Credit Default Swaps The Next Crisis” at http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0606.html.

[xiii] Taibbi, supra FN10.

How the Crisis Came into Being

While the vast majority of individuals, both in America and abroad, are concerned (to put it lightly) over the economy, and are beginning to familiarize themselves with issues related to the financial crisis, a demystification of how the meltdown happened is necessary to ensuring that situations such as these are prevented in the future. Possibly the best method of explaining the economic crisis is to start with regulation.

Perhaps one of the most integral events that allowed the banking and economic crisis to occur was action taken by former United States Senator William Philip Gramm. He has been referred to as the ‘high priest of deregulation”[i] of the financial markets and lead efforts to pass the 1999 legislation known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Act, also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act[ii], is most widely credited with repealing certain portions of the Glass-Steagall Act[iii], and allowed investment banks and commercial banks to consolidate.

Some believe, rightly so, that this act was partly to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis and the current economic crisis. [iv][v] Then, a year later, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, also spearheaded (or at the very least sponsored) by Former Senator Gramm, was passed. This act is credited by some with allowing the Enron Scandal to occur[vi] and prevented the government from regulating derivative transactions, including credit default swaps[vii], which ultimately led to the financial debacle we currently find ourselves in.

Also, through other legislation that was passed in 1999, certain companies could select the Office of Thrift Supervision (hereinafter OTS) as their regulator, as long as they owned at least one thrift (commonly called savings-and-loans). This allowed insurance giant American International Group (hereinafter AIG) to choose the OTS (a small agency by comparison to the Securities and Exchange Commission) to regulate them after purchasing a single thrift in Delaware.

This legislation allowed an agency with only one insurance specialist on staff to regulate the largest insurer in the world. It logically follows then that something would be overlooked. The combination of these acts paved the way for banks to purchase credit default swaps and the lack of regulation allowed freeing up of assets to run ramped.



[i] Paul Krugman (2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics)

[iii] Legislation that came out of the Great Depression era and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and kept banking, insurance and brokerage activities separate. The first Glass-Steagall Act was the first time that currency was allowed to be allocated to the Federal Reserve System. The second Glass-Steagall Act, known as the Banking Act of 1933 was responsible for the FDIC and bank separation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#cite_note-7

[v] Matt Taibbi: The Big Takeover. The Rolling Stone, April 2, 2009 Issue

Brief overview of moral hazard

Research suggests[i] that the term “moral hazard” dates all the way back to the 17th century, and was later utilized by insurance companies in England in the late 19th century. It was not until the 1960s that the concept was used in terms of the economy and was used to describe ineptitudes that potentially occur when risks are relocated.

            In more general terms, the concept of moral hazard describes the behavior of a party in a situation where the party is not fully exposed to the risk associated with the activity[ii]. Moral hazard occurs when a party (whether it be an individual or an organization) engages in activity less carefully than it would if it was required to bear the full responsibility and consequences of its actions. In essence, the party is less inclined to prevent an occurrence because they are somehow insulated from the negative consequences.

            The concept of moral hazard is not limited to the area of insurance agreements, but rather it is also applied to the courts interpreting contracts in a general sense. “According to Posner, the moral hazard problem arises when a party is ‘insured’ against a risk ‘that he could have prevented at a reasonable cost.’…undesirable incentives are created if a party that could have done something to avoid or minimize the loss is let off the hook by a court. Thus, when courts employ default rules to allocate risk among parties to a contract, the court is in a sense ‘writing insurance’ ex post. One implication of this is that courts, acting as an arbiter of risk by construing a contract, must be wary of creating conditions for moral hazard.”[iii] This definition of moral hazard and when it arises can offer a more contextual sense of the broad nature of the idea.

Some believe that moral hazard is a necessary evil of information asymmetry. The idea that a party to a transaction who has more information than another is shielded from risk makes sense and helps to explain the theory. The party with less information is then required to trust that the other party will behave appropriately, without ever knowing if that is the case. Therefore, it is logical that the concept of moral hazard has traditionally been applied in the insurance context[iv]. Moral hazard occurs when the insured party behaves in a manner that raises the cost on the part of the insurer as a result of the insured party’s insulation from all, or part of the risk.



[i] Dembe, Allard E. and Boden, Leslie I. (2000). “Moral Hazard: A Question of Morality?” New Solutions 2000 10 (3). 257-279

[iii] Eric D. Beal. “Posner and Moral Hazard”. 7 Conn. Ins. L.J. 81 (2001).

[iv] Arrow, Kenneth (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Finland: Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio. OCLC 228221660. See also Arrow, Kenneth (1971). Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Chicago: Markham. 

Sneak Preview

I recently wrote a paper for an independent study that I hope to convert into a law review article or note in the near future. I am posting the topic of the paper and will follow with paragraphs and snippets of the paper periodically. Enjoy!

The paper seeks to highlight the role of the rating agencies in the current financial crisis, gives an overview and layman’s guide explaining what occurred, relates how politics came into play that allowed it to occur, and how the concept of moral hazard applies to the so-called “bailout”. Lastly, the work offers suggestions as to what kinds of regulations should be implemented in order to mitigate the damage that has been caused as well as prevent situations like these from occurring.