Credit Derivatives: An Overview: David Mengle

F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F AT L A N TA
Credit Derivatives:
An Overview
DAVID MENGLE
The author is the head of research at the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.
This paper was presented at the Atlanta Fed’s 2007 Financial Markets Conference, “Credit
Derivatives: Where’s the Risk?” held May 14–16.
A derivative is a bilateral agreement that shifts risk from one party to another; its
value is derived from the value of an underlying price, rate, index, or financial
instrument. A credit derivative is an agreement designed explicitly to shift credit risk
between the parties; its value is derived from the credit performance of one or more
corporations, sovereign entities, or debt obligations.
Credit derivatives arose in response to demand by financial institutions, mainly
banks, for a means of hedging and diversifying credit risks similar to those already
used for interest rate and currency risks. But credit derivatives also have grown in
response to demands for low-cost means of taking on credit exposure. The result has
been that credit has gradually changed from an illiquid risk that was not considered
suitable for trading to a risk that can be traded much the same as others.
This paper begins with a description of credit default swaps, total return swaps, and
asset swaps and then focuses on the mechanics and risks of credit default swaps. The
paper then describes the market for credit default swaps and how it evolved and pro-
vides an overview of pricing and the risk-management role of the dealer. Next, the dis-
cussion considers the costs and benefits of credit derivatives and outlines some recent
policy issues. The conclusion considers the possible future direction of the market.
How Credit Derivatives Work

The vast majority of credit derivatives take the form of the credit default swap
(CDS), which is a contractual agreement to transfer the default risk of one or more
reference entities from one party to the other (Figure 1). One party, the protection
buyer, pays a periodic fee to the other party, the protection seller, during the term
of the CDS. If the reference entity defaults or declares bankruptcy or another credit
event occurs, the protection seller is obligated to compensate the protection buyer
for the loss by means of a specified settlement procedure. The protection buyer is
entitled to protection on a specified face value, referred to in this paper as the
ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 1

Figure 1
Credit Default Swap
XX basis points per annum
Protection buyer Protection seller
Default payment
Reference entity
notional amount, of reference entity debt. The reference entity is not a party to the
contract, and the buyer or seller need not obtain the reference entity’s consent to
enter into a CDS.
Risks associated with credit default swaps. In contrast to interest rate swaps
but similar to options, the risks assumed in a credit default swap by the protection
buyer and protection seller are not symmetrical. The protection buyer effectively takes
on a short position in the credit risk of the reference entity, which thereby relieves the
buyer of exposure to default.1 By giving up reference entity credit risk, the buyer effec-
tively gives up the opportunity to profit from exposure to the reference entity. In
return, the buyer takes on (1) counterparty default exposure to simultaneous default
by the reference entity and the protection seller (“double default”) and (2) counter-
party replacement risk of default by the protection seller only. In addition, the protec-
tion buyer takes on basis risk to the extent that the reference entity specified in the
CDS does not precisely match the hedged asset. A bank hedging a loan, for example,
might buy protection on a bond issued by the borrower instead of negotiating a more
customized, and potentially less liquid, CDS linked directly to the loan. Another exam-
ple would be a bank using a CDS with a five-year maturity to hedge a loan with four
years to maturity. Again, the reason for doing so is liquidity, although as CDS markets
expand the concentration of liquidity in specific maturities should lessen.
The protection seller, in contrast, takes on a long position in the credit risk of the
reference entity, which is essentially the same as the default risk taken on when lend-
ing directly to the reference entity. The main difference between the two is the need to
fund a loan but not a sale of protection. The protection seller also takes on counter-
party risk because the seller will lose expected premium income if the buyer defaults.
One exception to the above risk allocation is the funded CDS (also called a credit-
linked note), in which the protection seller lends the notional amount to the protec-
tion buyer in order to secure performance in the event of default. In a funded CDS
the protection buyer is relieved of counterparty exposure to the protection seller, but
the seller now has exposure to the buyer along with exposure to the reference entity.
In order to reduce the seller’s exposure to the buyer, the parties sometimes establish
2 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

a bankruptcy-remote entity, known as a special-purpose vehicle, that stands between

the two parties and is independent of default by the protection buyer.
CDS mechanics. The reference entity is the party on which protection is written.
For the simplest (single-name) form of CDS, the reference entity is an individual cor-
poration or government. If a corporate reference entity is taken over by another, the
protection typically shifts to the acquiring entity. If a reference entity de-merges or
spins off a subsidiary, CDS market participants have developed a set of criteria, known
as successor provisions, for determining the new reference entities.
A CDS with two or more—usually between three and ten—reference entities is
known as a basket CDS. In the most common form of basket CDS, the first-to-default
CDS, the protection seller compensates the buyer for losses associated with the first
entity in the basket to default, after which the swap terminates and provides no fur-
ther protection. CDS referencing more than ten entities are sometimes referred to
as portfolio products. Such products are generally used in connection with synthetic
securitizations, in which a CDS transfers credit risk of loans or bonds to collateral-
ized debt obligation (CDO) note holders in lieu of a true sale of the assets as in a cash
securitization (Choudhry 2004).
A major source of credit derivatives growth since 2004 has been the index CDS, in
which the reference entity is an index of as many as 125 corporate entities. An index
CDS offers protection on all entities in the index, and each entity has an equal share of
the notional amount. The two main indices are the CDX index, consisting of 125 North
American investment-grade firms, and the iTraxx index, consisting of 125 euro-based
firms, mainly investment grade. In addition, indices exist for North American sub-
investment-grade firms, for European firms that have been downgraded from invest-
ment grade, and for regions such as Japan and Asia excluding Japan. If a firm included
in the index defaults, the protection buyer is compensated for the loss and then the
CDS notional amount is reduced by the defaulting firm’s pro rata share. In addition to
CDS on indices, market participants can buy or sell protection on tranches of indices—
that is, on a specific level of losses on an agreed notional amount of an underlying
index. For example, an investor can sell protection on the 3–7 percent tranche of the
CDX Investment Grade Index with a notional amount of $100 million, which means the
investor could be required to compensate a protection buyer for losses on the index in
excess of $3 million but not beyond $7 million, for a maximum of $4 million.
Recent innovations in CDS have extended protection to reference obligations
instead of entities. CDS on asset-backed securities (ABS), for example, provide pro-
tection against credit events on securitized assets, usually securitized home equity
lines of credit. In addition, CDS can specify CDO notes as reference obligations.
Finally, loan CDS can reference leveraged loans to a specific entity.
With regard to credit events, the confirmation of a CDS deal specifies a standard
set of events that must occur before the protection seller compensates the buyer for
losses; the parties to the deal decide which of those events to include and which to
exclude. Which events are chosen varies according to the type of reference entity.
First, the most commonly included credit event is failure to pay. Second, bankruptcy
is a credit event for corporate reference entities but not for sovereign entities. Third,
restructuring, which refers to actions such as coupon reduction or maturity exten-
sion undertaken in lieu of default, is generally included as a credit event for corpo-
rate entities. Restructuring is sometimes referred to as a “soft” credit event because,
1. Credit traders in fact refer to bought protection as a short position in the reference entity and to
sold protection as a long position.

in contrast to failure to pay or bankruptcy, it is not always clear what constitutes a

restructuring that should trigger compensation. Fourth, repudiation or moratorium
provides for compensation after specified actions of a government reference entity
and is generally relevant only to emerging market reference entities. Finally, obligation
acceleration and obligation default, which refer to technical defaults such as violation
of a bond covenant, are rarely included.
The third feature of a CDS, the settlement method, refers to the means by which
the protection seller compensates the buyer in the event of default. The two types of
settlement are physical settlement and
In contrast to interest rate swaps but simi- cash settlement. If a credit event triggers a
lar to options, the risks assumed in a credit CDS with physical settlement, the protec-
tion buyer delivers to the protection seller
default swap by the protection buyer and the defaulted debt of the reference entity
protection seller are not symmetrical. with a face value equal to the notional
amount specified in the CDS. In return, the
protection seller pays the par value—that is, the face amount—of the debt. If the
event occurs in a CDS with cash settlement, an auction of the defaulted bonds takes
place to determine the postdefault market value. Once this value is determined, the
protection seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value, which is equal
to the CDS notional amount, and the postdefault market value. Physical settlement
was the standard settlement method for most CDS until 2005 but is being replaced by
cash settlement for reasons that will be discussed in a later section.
The last major feature of a credit default swap is the premium, commonly known
as the CDS spread; this feature will be discussed in more detail in a later section. The
spread is essentially the internal rate of return that equates the expected premium
flows over the life of the swap to the expected loss if a default occurs at various dates.
The buyer and seller agree on the spread on the trade date, and the spread remains
constant for the life of the CDS; the only exception is a constant maturity CDS, in
which the credit spread is reset periodically to the current market level. The CDS
spread is quoted as an annual premium, such as 1 percent or 100 basis points per
annum, but is actually paid in quarterly installments during the year.
Transaction mechanics. In the early stages of a trading relationship, the con-
tracting parties conduct credit analyses of each other and negotiate the terms of the
agreement under which future transactions will take place. For over-the-counter
(OTC) derivatives, including credit derivatives, the most commonly used agreement
is the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement.
The agreement includes terms that the parties wish to include in all future transac-
tions—for example, governing law, covenants, and so on. Once the parties execute
the agreement, it serves as the contract under which all future OTC derivative deals
take place. Each deal is evidenced by a confirmation, which contains the terms of the
individual transaction such as reference entity, maturity, premium, notional amount,
credit events, settlement method, and other transaction-specific terms. The terms of
the confirmation in turn draw from the ISDA definitions pertaining to the product;
for CDS, the relevant definitions are the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions.
Execution of a deal involves negotiating the deal terms, which as mentioned above
are listed in the confirmation. The generation of the confirmation is of particular impor-
tance because both parties must agree on the same terms; if they do not specify pre-
cisely the identity of the reference entity, for example, a protection buyer could claim
that the entity defaulted, but the payer could refuse payment because the entity
described in the confirmation is not identical to the one that defaulted. In most trans-

Figure 2
Total Return Swap
LIBOR + Funding cost

X basis points (<
– LIBOR)
Total return Total return Reference
receiver payer obligation
TR of reference TR of reference
obligation obligation
Total return swap
Total return (TR) = interest + fees ± (appreciation/depreciation) – default losses
actions, market participants will choose from a standard menu of contract terms that
have been developed collectively by ISDA member firms. As in all OTC derivatives,
however, the parties are free to negotiate terms that differ from market standards.
Following the execution of the trade, the parties will monitor for occurrence of
credit events. In addition, the parties will also have to amend trades to account for
succession events in which the reference entity changes form as mentioned previ-
ously. Finally, if a credit event occurs, the parties settle the CDS obligations according
to procedures set forth in the ISDA documentation.
Other credit derivatives. The credit default swap in various forms accounts
for the vast majority of credit derivatives activity. Three related products deserve
mention, however.
First, a total return swap transfers the total economic performance of a reference
obligation from one party (total return payer) to the other (total return receiver). In
contrast to a credit default swap, the total return swap transfers market risk along
with credit risk. As a result, a credit event is not necessary for payment to occur
between the parties.
A total return swap works as follows (Figure 2). The total return payer normally
owns the reference obligation and agrees to pay the total return on the reference
obligation to the receiver. The total return is generally equal to interest plus fees plus
the appreciation or depreciation of the reference obligation. The total return receiver,
for its part, will pay a money market rate, usually LIBOR (London Interbank Offered
Rate), plus a negotiated spread, which is generally independent of the reference obli-
gation performance. The spread is generally bounded by funding costs: The upper
bound is the receiver’s cost of funding, and the lower bound is the payer’s cost of
funding the reference obligation. If a credit event or a major decline in market value
occurs, the total return will become negative, so the receiver will end up compensat-
ing the payer. The end result of a total return swap is that the total return payer is
relieved of economic exposure to the reference obligation but has taken on counter-
party exposure to the total return receiver. The most common total return receivers
are hedge funds seeking exposure to the reference obligation on terms more favorable

Figure 3
Asset Swap
LIBOR 6.30%
Money Corporate
Investor note (5-year)
market
LIBOR + 0.85% 6.30%
Dealer
Assume that
5-year U.S. dollar interest rate swap rate = 5.45%
Par bond coupon = 6.30%
⇒ Asset swap spread = 0.85%
than by funding a direct purchase of the obligation; this tactic is sometimes known
as “renting the balance sheet” of the total return payer, which is normally a well-
capitalized institution such as a bank.
In addition to total return swaps, asset swaps are sometimes classified as credit
derivatives although they are in fact interest rate derivatives. Whatever their classifica-
tion, they are relevant to credit derivatives because they are related by arbitrage to
credit default swaps. An asset swap combines a fixed-rate bond or note with an interest
rate swap (Figure 3). The party that owns the bond pays the coupon into an interest rate
swap with a similar maturity to the bond. Because the bond coupon is typically larger
than the current swap rate for that maturity, the LIBOR leg of the floating rate swap is
increased by a spread equal to the difference between the underlying bond coupon
rate and the interest rate swap rate prevailing on the trade date. Because the interest rate
swap effectively strips out the interest rate risk of the bond, the bondholder is left
mainly with the credit risk of the bond (along with some counterparty credit risk on the
swap). The asset swap spread compensates the bondholder for the credit risk; for
this reason, the asset swap spread should be related by arbitrage to the credit default
swap spread. This relationship will be discussed in more detail in the section on pricing.
One last type of credit derivative is the credit spread option, which gives the
buyer the right but not the obligation to pay or receive a specified credit spread for
a given period. Such products were never more than 5 percent of notional amounts
outstanding and are now about 1 percent (British Bankers Association [BBA] 2006),
so they are of mainly historical interest. Credit spread options appear to have given
way to swaptions on CDS, which give the buyer the right but not the obligation to buy
(put swaption) or sell (call swaption) CDS protection.
In the remainder of this paper, credit derivatives and credit default swaps will
mean the same thing unless otherwise specified.
The Market for Credit Derivatives

According to the BBA (2006), the notional amount outstanding of credit derivatives
has grown from $180 billion in 1997 to over $20 trillion in 2006 (Figure 4). Other sur-

Figure 4
Growth of Credit Derivatives
50,000
45,000
BBA
ISDA
40,000
35,000
30,000
$U.S. billion
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Notional amounts outstanding
Sources: BBA (2006); ISDA Market Surveys, 2001–07
veys report higher numbers. ISDA, for example, began collecting CDS notional
amounts in 2001 and reports growth from $632 billion in 2001 to over $45 trillion by
midyear 2007; annual growth has exceeded 100 percent from 2004 through 2006 but
slowed to 75 percent by mid-2007. And the Bank for International Settlements, which
began collecting comprehensive statistics in 2004, reports growth of notional amount
from $6.4 trillion at the end of 2004 to almost $43 trillion as of June 2007 (BIS 2007).
Average notional amounts for individual deals range from $10 million to $20 million
for North American investment-grade credits and are about €10 million for European
investment-grade credits; sub-investment-grade credits have notionals that average
about half the amounts for investment grade (JPMorgan Chase 2006). The most liquid
maturities center on five years, but liquidity is increasing for shorter maturities and
for longer maturities out to ten years (BBA 2006).
Table 1 shows the credit derivative breakdown by product type. According to the
BBA, CDS on indices have recently passed CDS on single names as the dominant
product type (BBA 2006). Single-name CDS, which were 38 percent of notional
amount outstanding in 1999, grew to as high as 51 percent in 2004 and are 33 percent
as of 2006. CDS linked to indices and to tranches of indices have grown from virtually
nothing in 2003 to 38 percent of outstandings. Finally, CDS referencing portfolios of
names in synthetic securitization transactions have declined slightly from 18 percent
in 2000 to just over 16 percent in 2006. The “others” category includes total return
swaps and asset swaps, which are now less than 6 percent of outstandings; in 2000,
in contrast, total return swaps were 11 percent of outstanding amounts, and asset
swaps were 12 percent (BBA 2002).
Tables 2 and 3 show the breakdown of market participants by type. Banks and
securities firms were dominant in 2000, at 81 percent of protection buyers and 63 per-
cent of protection sellers. By 2006, they had declined in importance to 59 percent
of buyers and 44 percent of sellers. Recent data distinguish between banks’ trading

Table 1
Credit Derivative Product Mix
2000 2002 2004 2006
Single-name credit default swaps 38 45 51 33

Basket products 6 6 4 2
Full index trades — — 9 30
Tranched index trades — — 2 8
Synthetic CDOs—fully funded — — 6 4
Synthetic CDOs—partially funded — — 10 13
Credit-linked notes (funded CDS) 10 8 6 3
Credit spread options 5 5 2 1
Equity-linked credit products — — 1 0
Swaptions — — 1 1
Others 41 36 8 6
Source: BBA (2006)
activities and credit portfolio management activities: Trading activities are roughly
balanced between buying and selling protection while credit portfolio managers
appear more likely to hedge by buying protection than to seek diversification through
selling protection. Insurance companies tend to be active as sellers of protection;
they were 23 percent of sellers in 2000 but dropped to 17 percent by 2006. The
most significant change has been in the importance of hedge funds, which tend to
function as both buyers and sellers: In 2000, hedge funds were 3 percent of buyers
and 5 percent of sellers but by 2006 had grown to 28 percent of buyers and 32 per-
cent of sellers.
Table 4 shows the most common CDS counterparties—essentially, the most
active dealers in the market—from 2003 through 2006. Table 5 shows the most com-
mon reference entities for single-name CDS, both by deal count and by underlying
notional amount, as of year-end 2006 (Fitch Ratings 2007).
Evolution of the market. Smithson (2003) identified three stages in the evolu-
tion of credit derivatives activity. The first, “defensive” stage, during the late 1980s
and early 1990s, was characterized by ad hoc attempts by banks to lay off some of
their credit exposures. In addition, products such as securitized asset swaps bore
some resemblance to credit default swaps in that they paid investors a credit spread
while providing for delivery of the underlying asset to the investor in the event of a
default (Cilia 1996).
Stage two, which began about 1991 and lasted through the mid-to-late 1990s,
saw the emergence of an intermediated market, in which dealers applied derivatives
technology to the transfer of credit risk while investors entered the markets to seek
exposure to credit risk (Spinner 1997). Examples of dealer applications of derivative
technology include two transactions by Bankers Trust (Das 2006, 269–70). The first
involved a total return swap with another bank client seeking to free up credit lines
with a major client. The swap enabled the bank to pass its credit risk to Bankers
Trust, which in turn hedged its risk by selling the client’s bonds short. The second
transaction involved a funded first-to-default CDS on several Japanese client banks,
against which Bankers Trust had substantial credit exposure in the form of in-the-
money options. Although defensive in nature from Bankers Trust’s viewpoint, the

Table 2
Buyers of Protection by Institution Type
Type of institution 2000 2002 2004 2006
Banks (including securities firms) 81 73 67 59

Banks—trading activities — — — 39
Banks—loan portfolio — — — 20
Insurers 7 6 7 6
Monoline insurers — 3* 2 2
Reinsurers — 3 2
Other insurance companies — 3 2 2
Hedge funds 3 12 16 28
Pension funds 1 1 3 2
Mutual funds 1 2 3 2
Corporates 6 4 3 2
Other 1 2 1 1
*Monoline insurers and reinsurers combined

Source: BBA (2006)
Table 3
Sellers of Protection by Institution Type
Type of institution 2000 2002 2004 2006
Banks (including securities firms) 63 55 54 44

Banks—trading activities — — — 35
Banks—loan portfolio — — — 9
Insurers 23 33 20 17
Monoline insurers — 21* 10 8
Reinsurers — 7 4
Other insurance companies — 12 3 5
Hedge funds 5 5 15 32
Pension funds 3 2 4 4
Mutual funds 2 3 4 3
Corporates 3 2 2 1
Other 1 0 1 1
*Monoline insurers and reinsurers combined

Source: BBA (2006)
transaction appealed to investors seeking yield enhancement by buying the credit-

linked notes issued by Bankers Trust.
Another innovation during this phase was the synthetic securitization structure.
Synthetic securitization represented the extension of credit derivatives to structured
finance, that is, to the combining of derivatives with cash instruments or with other
derivatives to attain a desired exposure. The first synthetic securitization transactions
included the Glacier transaction, developed by SBC Warburg (now UBS), and the Bistro
transaction, developed by J.P. Morgan (now JPMorgan Chase). Glacier was a funded
structure, in which SBC transferred to investors the entire credit risk of approxi-
mately $1.75 billion of loans by means of credit-linked notes. Bistro, in contrast, was

Table 4
Twenty Largest CDS Counterparties, 2003–06
2003 2004 2005 2006
JPMorgan Chase Deutsche Bank Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley

Deutsche Bank Morgan Stanley Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank
Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley JPMorgan Chase JPMorgan Chase JPMorgan Chase
Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch UBS Barclays
CSFB CSFB Lehman Brothers UBS
UBS Lehman Brothers Barclays Lehman Brothers
Lehman Brothers Merrill Lynch Citigroup Credit Suisse
Citigroup Citigroup CSFB Merrill Lynch
Bear Stearns Bear Stearns BNP Paribas BNP Paribas
Commerzbank Barclays Merrill Lynch ABN Amro
BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Bear Stearns Bear Stearns
Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Citigroup
Dresdner Dresdner Dresdner Société Générale
ABN Amro HSBC ABN Amro HSBC
Société Générale Commerzbank HSBC Dresdner
AIG Royal Bank of Scotland Société Générale Bank of America
Barclays Société Générale Calyon Royal Bank of Scotland
Toronto Dominion ABN Amro Royal Bank of Scotland Calyon
Calyon Toronto Dominion AIG CIBC
Source: Fitch Ratings (various years)
a partially funded structure, in which Morgan transferred to investors approximately

10 percent of the credit risk by means of a credit default swap while retaining any
loss beyond that in the form of a “super-senior” tranche (Choudhry 2004). Although
the transactions appear defensive from UBS and Morgan’s point of view, they also
appealed to investors seeking exposure to credit risk.
Investors benefited from the above second-stage innovations in at least two
ways. First, investors could attain exposure to loans, which had previously been out
of reach becaue of the lack of a credit processing infrastructure among buy-side
firms. Second, investors could attain exposure to credit risk without having to accept
exposure to interest rate risk as well; asset swaps were an early means of attaining
such exposure.
The third stage saw the maturing of credit derivatives from a new product into
one resembling other forms of derivatives. Single-name credit default swaps emerged
during this period as the “vanilla,” or generic, credit derivatives product, while struc-
tured finance groups combined credit derivatives into “arbitrage” CDO packages
geared to investor demands. Major financial regulators issued guidance for the regu-
latory capital treatment of credit derivatives, which served to clarify the constraints
under which the emerging market would operate. Further, ISDA in 1999 issued a set
of standard credit derivatives definitions for use in connection with the ISDA Master
Agreement. Finally, dealers began warehousing risks and running hedged and diver-
sified portfolios of credit derivatives.

Table 5
Top Reference Entities, Gross Protection Bought and Sold, Year-End 2006
Largest by count Largest by volume

Protection sold Protection bought Protection sold Protection bought
1 General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC

2 DaimlerChrysler DaimlerChrysler Brazil Brazil
3 Telecom Italia Ford Motor Corp./ DaimlerChrysler DaimlerChrysler
Ford Motor Credit
4 Italy France Telecom Ford Motor Corp./ France Telecom
Ford Motor Credit
5 Deutsche Telekom Telecom Italia Turkey Turkey
6 Ford Motor Corp./ Telefonica Telecom Italia Ford Motor Corp./
Ford Motor Credit Ford Motor Credit
7 Brazil Brazil Russia Telecom Italia
8 Telefonica Deutsche Telekom France Telecom Deutsche Telecom
9 France Telecom Italy Deutsche Telecom Russia
10 Russia Volkswagen Telefonica Telefonica
11 BT Group Russia United Mexican States AT&T
12 Fannie Mae Time Warner BT Group BT Group
13 General Electric/GECC Turkey Italy AIG
14 Spain Argentina AT&T Volkswagen
15 Turkey BT Group General Electric/GECC General Electric/GECC
16 Portugal General Electric/GECC AIG Gazprom
17 United Mexican States Altria Group Fannie Mae Banco Santander
Central Hispano
18 France Bombardier Altria Group Safeway
19 Germany Merrill Lynch KPN United Mexican States
20 Altria Group Philippines Vodafone Altria Group
21 Deutsche Bank United Mexican States Portugal Telecom Argentina
22 Merrill Lynch AIG VNU KPN
23 Gazprom Bayer Safeway Venezuela
24 Time Warner Citigroup Gazprom AXA
25 Volkswagen Clear Channel Venezuela Supervalu
Source: Fitch Ratings (2007)
During this stage, the market encountered a series of challenges that led to calls
for further refinement to the documentation. One such problem was restructuring.
The 1999 definitions included debt restructuring—that is, actions such as lowering
coupon or extending maturity—as a credit event triggering payment under a CDS.
The definition was put to the test with the restructuring in 2000 of loans to Conseco.
Banks agreed to extend the maturity of Conseco’s senior secured loans in return for
higher coupon and collateral; protection was thereby triggered on about $2 billion of
CDS. Protection buyers then took advantage of an embedded “cheapest to deliver”
option in CDS by delivering long-dated senior unsecured bonds, which were deeply

discounted—worth about 40 cents on the dollar—relative to the restructured loans,

which were worth over 90 cents on the dollar. Protection sellers ended up absorbing
losses that were greater than those incurred by protection buyers, which led many
protection sellers to question the workability of including restructuring. The problem
was complicated further by the insistence by some regulators that CDS cover restruc-
turing for a CDS hedge to qualify for capital relief. The result, arrived at through
ISDA committee efforts, was a set of mod-
With the new ISDA credit derivatives defi- ifications to the definition of restructuring
nitions in place, dealers in 2003 began to that placed some limits on deliverable bond
maturity and therefore on the cheapest-
trade according to certain standardized to-deliver option.
practices that went beyond those adopted Another problem involved apportion-
for other OTC derivatives. ing credit protection when a reference
entity de-merges or spins off part of its
activities into new entities. The problem arose in the United Kingdom in 2000, when
National Power de-merged into two companies; one company inherited 56 percent of
National Power’s obligations, and the other held the rest. The problem was to deter-
mine the new reference entity for CDS referencing National Power, but the 1999 def-
initions did not provide sufficient guidance to assure the market that courts would
agree on the outcome. The result was to develop a set of detailed “successor” provi-
sions, which provided quantitative thresholds for such cases.
Yet another problem was debt moratoriums or repudiations in emerging markets.
During the Argentine debt crisis of 2002, there were several changes of government,
involving a succession of officials who made threats regarding debt repudiation. The
problem arose that, under the 1999 definitions, it was possible to declare a repudia-
tion credit event following a statement by a government official even if in the end the
government did not fail to pay its obligations. To reduce the risk of declaring a credit
event prematurely, ISDA developed more stringent criteria for such an event.
The foregoing problems led ISDA to issue in 2003 a new set of credit derivatives
definitions. At this point, one can add a fourth stage to those cataloged by Smithson,
namely, the development of a liquid market. With the new ISDA credit derivatives
definitions in place, dealers in 2003 began to trade according to certain standardized
practices—standard settlement dates, for example—that went beyond those adopted
for other OTC derivatives. Further, index trading began on a large scale in 2004 and
grew rapidly. The wide acceptance of index trading at that time was in part the result
of the merger of the iBoxx and Trac-x credit indices into iTraxx for Europe and CDX
for North America. The mergers provided market participants with a single index,
subject to transparent rules and a high degree of standardization, for each major
market. At the same time, dealers took deliberate measures to promote liquidity in
index trading; such measures included developing master confirmations, committing
to quote tight bid-offer spreads, and allowing investors to trade out of an old index
and “roll” into the new one at mid-market spreads. Index trading was more appealing
to investors than single-name trading because indices provide diversified exposure
instead of concentrating it on one name. The results went well beyond expectations:
According to one survey, index product growth was 900 percent in 2005 (Fitch
Ratings 2006).
This last stage saw the entry of hedge funds on a large scale as both buyers and
sellers (Tables 2 and 3). Hedge funds use credit derivatives in a variety of ways. First,
hedge funds use credit derivatives in their convertible bond arbitrage activities to strip
out unwanted credit risk. Second, hedge funds can buy and sell protection to profit

from perceived mispricing. Finally, hedge funds engage in basis trading between
credit default swaps and assets swaps on cash bonds. All these activities serve to
increase liquidity, price discovery, and efficiency in the market.
Pricing, Valuation, and Risk Management

CDS pricing and valuation. The premium for a credit default swap is commonly
known as a CDS spread and is quoted as an annual percentage in basis points of the
notional amount. Although quoted as an annual percentage, protection buyers actually
pay the spread on a quarterly basis, that is, in four installments per year. Further, in
contrast to other OTC derivatives, CDS have standard payment dates, namely, March
20, June 20, September 20, and December 20; these standard payment dates also
serve as standard maturity dates. CDS transacted prior to a standard payment date
are subject to a “stub” period up to the first standard payment date and follow the
standard schedule afterwards. A CDS with a five-year maturity agreed on May 1, 2007,
for example, would become effective on May 2 with the accrued premium due on
June 20; subsequent payments would occur on regular dates until maturity on June
20, 2012. If the spread for a distressed credit is sufficiently high, the CDS will trade
“up front”—that is, the buyer will pay the present value of the excess of the premium
over 500 basis points at the beginning of the trade and pay 500 basis points per annum
for the life of the swap (Taksler 2007, 44).
There are two basic ways of determining a CDS spread, namely, from asset swap
spreads and from calculation of expected CDS cash flows. Assets swaps, which were
described in a preceding section and shown in Figure 3, are related to credit default
swaps because both products serve to unbundle credit risk. In an asset swap, an
investor purchases a reference entity’s cash bond—preferably priced at par—and
pays the bond coupon into an interest rate swap of the same maturity. As mentioned
previously, the swap counterparty adjusts the LIBOR leg of the swap for the differ-
ence between the bond coupon rate and the par swap rate for the same maturity;
the difference is known as the asset swap spread and compensates the investor for the
default risk on the bond.
The asset swap spread performs essentially the same function as a CDS spread,
so the two should be related by arbitrage. If CDS spreads are low relative to asset
swap spreads, for example, a dealer or investor could buy an asset-swapped bond
and offset it by buying protection (equivalent to selling the reference entity short)
and locking in a profit. Such arbitrage should lead to convergence between CDS
spreads and asset swap spreads (narrowing of the basis). Arbitrage in the other
direction is not as straightforward, however: If CDS spreads are higher than asset
swap spreads, arbitrage requires selling protection (long the credit) and selling the
bond short. Shorting a bond is often not feasible, however, and will depend crucially
on the liquidity of the underlying bond market.
The possibility of arbitrage between CDS and asset swaps will nonetheless tend
to reduce the basis between the two rates. But other factors are also at work to keep
the rates from converging (Choudhry 2006). Supply and demand factors might affect
the price of CDS relative to bonds in several ways. Structured finance activity, for
example, might lead to sales of protection to fund CDO notes, thereby driving down
CDS spreads relative to bonds. Similarly, investors with high funding costs might pre-
fer to take on credit risk by selling protection rather than by purchasing bonds
financed by borrowing, again driving spreads down relative to bond yields. And in the
other direction, a bond trading below par will tend to push CDS spreads higher rela-
tive to bond yields. The reason is that a protection seller pays out the difference

between par value and postdefault price, while an investor who bought the bond
below par has lost only the difference between the below-par purchase price and the
postdefault price. The result of the above factors is that, even if asset swap spreads
will not in most cases converge to CDS spreads, they are a reasonable starting point
for calculating the spread.
As an alternative to relying on asset swap spreads, CDS pricing models seek to
calculate CDS spreads by calculating expected cash flows. In such models, the CDS
spread is an internal rate of return that equates present value of expected premium
payments to present value of expected loss payments; that is
PV(expected spread payments) = PV(expected n

default losses), where
PV(expected spread payments) = Spreadn
× Σ
i=1
DCF i × PSi × PVi (N) and
Σ [(PSi–1 – PSi) × PVi(N)]
PV(expected default losses) = LGD × i=1
using the following notation:
Spread = fixed CDS spread;

DCFi = day count fraction relevant to period i;
PSi = survival probability, that is, probability of no default from inception to period i;
PVi(.) = present value operator for period i;
N = notional amount of CDS protection;
LGD = loss rate given default, equal to (1 – recovery rate), assumed fixed; and
PSi–1 – PSi = PDi = probability of default in period i.
Solving the model involves calculating the spread that equates net present value
to zero—that is, an internal rate of return—under an assumed LGD. The survival and
default probabilities come from outside the model; alternatively, market spreads can
be used to calculate implied probabilities of default under an assumed LGD. For sim-
plicity, the above equations ignore accrued spread, which in the event of default
would be payable by the buyer to the seller for the fraction of the period from the last
premium payment date to the default date.
After inception, the value of the CDS will depend mostly on changes in credit
quality as reflected in current credit spreads. Given that the CDS spread for a trans-
action remains fixed, the mark-to-market value of the CDS will be equal to the present
value of the spread differences over the life of the CDS, taking account of survival
probabilities and, again, ignoring the accrued premium. Letting Spread0 equal the
CDS spread fixed at inception and Spreadi equal the current market spread, mark-
to-market value from the buyer’s point of view is
n
MTMi = (Spreadi – Spread0) × i=1
Σ DCFi × PSi × PVi(N).
If the buyer were to unwind at this point (to be discussed in the section on novations),
the above equation represents the amount payable to the buyer.2
Just as difficulties exist using asset swap spreads, problems are associated with
models such as that described above. A major difficulty is that the model requires
that one assume an LGD and furnish exogenous probabilities of default to calculate
an implied CDS spread. Alternatively, one could use the current market CDS spread
to calculate an implied probability of default, but doing so would still require assum-
ing an LGD. Assumptions regarding recoveries therefore are important to CDS pricing
and valuation. In practice, market participants can model the effect of alternative

LGD assumptions and can set aside reserves against differences in assumptions
(JPMorgan Chase 2006, 92–93; Chaplin 2005, 105).
Risk management. The purpose of a derivatives dealer, along with making a two-
way market, is to earn profits by managing the risk of a portfolio of derivatives. For
credit derivatives, the risk management function is similar in form to that for other
types of derivatives. When a dealer takes on risk from a client, the dealer typically
hedges the risk but might elect to leave some of the risk uncovered. The willingness
of dealers to leave some risks uncovered—that is, to speculate—adds liquidity to the
market but requires close management.
Typically, however, dealers hedge their risks in some manner. Most simply, a dealer
might offset the risk of a new deal against that of other clients. Further, the dealer might
hedge the risk of a deal in the underlying market, that is, the cash bond market; for
that reason, credit derivatives and corporate bond risks are often managed together.
Finally, a dealer might choose to offset risks by means of offsetting transactions with
other dealers; this is a primary function of the interdealer market.
In the early stages of credit derivatives as described above, risk management
essentially consisted of laying off one’s own risks. As the market developed into a two-
sided market, dealers assumed the role of intermediaries between buyers and sellers,
taking on the basis risk between the two. In these early stages of development, deal-
ers tended to hedge new transactions with offsetting cash market positions to the
extent feasible or else with offsetting transactions.
As the market has developed, additional hedging alternatives have become avail-
able. The growth of index CDS, for example, has increased the flexibility of dealers
in their risk-management activities. After the advent of widely traded index CDS,
market liquidity increased significantly, and new market participants entered both as
buyers and sellers. In such an environment, the business has evolved into a “flow”
business: that is, traders tend to remain “flat” by buying and selling continually
instead of by taking large open long or short positions. But trading desks also can use
index CDS to hedge their single-name CDS. For example, on any given day spreads
tend to move in the same direction, so index swaps might be a reasonable hedge of a
diversified single-name CDS portfolio; as with other hedges, the dealer would assume
and manage the basis risk between the two.3
Along with the market risks of their deal portfolios and the accompanying basis
risks, dealers manage a host of other risks. First, counterparty credit risk is a major
component of all OTC derivatives activity. Counterparty risk management begins
with ISDA or other relevant transaction documentation, followed by measurement of
both current exposure and potential losses if default were to occur in the future and
finally by collateralization of net exposures. Second, dealers manage such risks as
time decay, in which deals lose value as they approach maturity. Finally, dealers man-
age model risks, which are associated with the simplifying assumptions as well as
unidentified errors in pricing models; to anticipate the possibility of model deficien-
cies, dealers calculate potential losses from modeling errors and set aside reserves to
cover them (Chaplin 2005, 100–106).
One unique aspect of credit derivatives activity compared with other OTC deriva-
tives is liquidity management. Credit derivatives are characterized by a higher degree
of standardization than are other forms of OTC derivatives, although the standard
2. For a more detailed practitioner-oriented discussion of CDS pricing, see Chaplin (2005).
3. This type of hedging is roughly equivalent to hedging interest rate swaps with Treasury bonds or
an equity portfolio with S&P 500 futures.

terms are not mandatory as in exchange-traded futures. As noted above, CDS involve
standard payment and maturity dates. Further, each type of reference entity involves
a standard set of credit events and other terms. Standard terms facilitate trading by
simplifying negotiation and tasks such as unwinds; they also make it easier for market
participants to engage in arbitrage between CDS indices and underlying names.
Credit derivatives participants have adopted a higher degree of standardization
because credit risk is different from other underlying risks. Unlike interest rate swaps,
in which the various risks of a customized transaction can be isolated by traders and
offset in liquid underlying money and currency markets, credit default swaps involve
“lumpy” credit risks that do not lend themselves to decomposition. Standardization
is therefore a substitute for decomposition. Yet despite the higher degree of standard-
ization, CDS retain their essential nature as OTC rather than standardized transac-
tions: Parties to CDS deals remain free to diverge from the market standard and to
customize transactions to whatever extent they agree.
Benefits and Costs of Credit Derivatives

Benefits. Credit derivatives emerged in response to two long-standing problems in
banking. First, lending operated under the handicap that hedging credit risk was sel-
dom, if ever, feasible. In financial terms, the problem was that taking a short position
in credit was not generally feasible. Although selling a corporate bond short is theo-
retically possible, many borrowers do not have liquid debt outstanding, so borrowing
for a short sale is often not feasible. As a result, if a credit deteriorates, a lender can
do little to protect itself prior to default other than taking collateral, which might not
be effective in many distressed cases, or by selling the loan, which normally requires
the consent of the borrower.
A second problem was diversification of credit risk. Financial economists have
long noted the benefits of applying a portfolio approach to loans by means of diver-
sification (Flannery 1985), but practical considerations made diversification difficult
to achieve. Relationship considerations, for example, posed an obstacle to diversify-
ing by deliberately reducing exposure to major clients. Further, the statistical prop-
erties of credit risk—that is, non-normality of loss distributions and the resulting
effect of specification errors in determining losses in the tail of the distributions—
suggest that a truly diversified loan portfolio requires a significantly larger number of
credits than would an equity or bond portfolio (Smithson 2003, 34–38). Given such
obstacles, the only practical way to diversify a lending business was to grow to a large
size by means of acquiring other banks.
Buying protection by means of credit derivatives provides solutions to both of the
foregoing problems. By allowing banks to take a short credit position, credit deriva-
tives enable banks to hedge their exposure to credit losses. A major benefit is that,
in contrast to loan sales, CDS do not require consent of the reference entity. As a
result, lenders also have a solution to the second problem, diversification. By hedg-
ing selectively, a bank can reduce its exposure to certain entities, thereby attaining
its diversification objective without jeopardizing the client relationship.
Another benefit to the protection buyer is the ability to act on a negative credit
view. If an investor believes that the market is overly optimistic about a reference
entity’s prospects, for example, the investor can buy protection now in anticipation
of deterioration. If the investor’s view turns out to be correct, the investor can
unwind the transaction at a profit by selling protection on the entity. Such specula-
tive activity has the beneficial effect of adding liquidity to the market and of increas-
ing the quality of price discovery (International Monetary Fund [IMF] 2006, chap. 2).

Market participants can also use CDS to engage in arbitrage between markets. In
convertible bond arbitrage, for example, an investor buys a convertible bond in which
the embedded equity option is underpriced, uses an asset swap to hedge out the
interest rate risk, and then buys credit protection to hedge out the credit risk. The
investor is then left with a pure equity exposure, which is the object of the arbitrage.
With regard to sellers of protection, credit derivatives enable market participants to
attain exposure in the form of a long credit position. A financial institution seeking
to diversify its credit exposure might, for
example, sell CDS protection as an alterna- Unlike interest rate swaps, in which risks
tive to making loans or buying bonds. This can be isolated and offset in liquid under-
alternative is especially helpful to institu- lying money and currency markets,
tions that seek credit exposure but lack the
legal infrastructure for lending; it is also credit default swaps involve “lumpy”
helpful to banks seeking to diversify their credit risks that do not lend themselves
loan portfolios but lacking direct relation- to decomposition.
ships with desired credits. Further, selling
protection allows an investor with a high cost of funding to take on credit exposure
without incurring the cost of funding. It is important in such cases that the investor
realizes that the exposure to losses is the same as if it were lending directly.
The ability to sell protection also allows market participants to act on a view that
a reference entity’s credit quality will improve. In this case, the investor would sell
protection now in the hope of unwinding it later by purchasing it at a lower price. As
mentioned above, such activity adds liquidity to the market and increases the quality
of price discovery.
Another benefit of credit derivatives is that they add transparency to credit mar-
kets (Kroszner 2007). Prior to the existence of credit derivatives, determining a price
for credit risk was difficult, and no accepted benchmark existed for credit risk. As
credit derivatives become more liquid and cover a wider range of entities, however,
lenders and investors will be able to compare pricing of cash instruments such as
bonds and loans with credit derivatives. Further, investors will be able to engage in
relative value trades between markets, which will lead to further improvements
in efficiency and price discovery.
At a higher level, economic stability stands to benefit from the ability to transfer
credit risk by buying and selling protection. As with other derivatives, the cost of risk
transfer is reduced, so risk is dispersed more widely into deeper markets. The result
is that economic shocks should have less effect than was the case prior to the exis-
tence of derivatives. Several objections can be made to such an argument, however,
and these will be considered in the next section.
Costs. It is often argued that the flip side of wider and deeper risk transfer is that,
instead of exerting a stabilizing influence on markets, it is potentially destabilizing
because it transfers risk from participants that specialize in credit risk (that is, banks)
to participants with less experience in managing credit risk—for example, insurers
and hedge funds (“Risky business” 2005, for example). In addition, there is the dan-
ger that anything used to disperse risk can also be used by investors seeking yield
enhancement to concentrate risk. Finally, these new institutions generally fall outside
the regulatory reach of agencies that oversee various aspects of the credit markets.
Such arguments have weaknesses, however. While it is true that banks tradition-
ally specialize in managing credit risk, for example, it is also true that traditional lend-
ing has tended to concentrate credit exposures in a narrow class of institutions,
namely, commercial banks. Further, one could argue that nonbank institutions might

in many cases have liability structures that are more suitable than those of banks for
bearing credit risks (IMF 2006, chap. 2). But even if one were to accept the ques-
tionable argument that nonbank investors are inevitably less skilled than banks at
managing credit risk, it would also be the case that credit losses would have less
effect on any one institution than was the case when credit was limited mostly to
banks. Finally, the argument that credit derivatives increase overall risks by trans-
ferring credit risk outside strictly regulated institutions makes an implicit assumption
that government regulation automatically leads to more prudent risk-taking. But this
argument ignores the potential moral hazard associated with such an assumption.
Indeed, because less regulated institutions are less likely to be protected by an official
safety net, such institutions are likely to have substantial incentives to identify, mea-
sure, and manage credit exposures (Kroszner 2007).
Another commonly cited cost of credit derivatives is that they reduce incentives
for lenders to analyze and monitor credit quality because they now have the ability
to off-load credit risk (Jackson 2007, for example). The result is a decrease in over-
all credit quality. Again, there are weaknesses to such arguments, mainly that hedg-
ing is not costless. As is true with other risks, when one hedges away a risk, one also
hedges away the opportunity to profit. A possible exception to this rule would be sys-
tematic underpricing of CDS protection relative to loan risk, for which no evidence
exists. Another possible exception is a “lemons” argument that lenders use collater-
alized debt obligations to off-load risks to protection sellers, although one would
expect that such a practice, if widespread, would induce CDO note buyers to build
expectations of higher losses into the price of the credit protection they provide. Yet
another exception would be lenders’ possessing inside information about credit qual-
ity, on which they could act by buying underpriced protection. This issue has already
received extensive attention by the financial industry (Joint Market Practices Forum
2003), however, and one would not expect such activity to be a systematic feature of
credit derivatives markets.
A corollary to the argument that lenders with access to credit protection are
indifferent to risk is that credit derivatives, as do other forms of risk transfer,
inevitably involve a moral hazard effect that leads to higher risk overall (Plender
2006). In other words, risk reduction at the individual entity level can mean higher
risk at the system level. Such an argument has an element of plausibility in that, when
market participants are able to hedge certain risks, they are able to increase the
amount of risks they take overall. But even if firms do take on more risk than before,
one could argue that, as long as firms do not take on excessive amounts of risk, the
system is in fact safer because the individual institutions that hedge are less vulner-
able to market shocks.
Recent Credit Derivatives Policy Issues

Novations and operational backlogs. The entry of hedge funds and other
investors into credit derivatives has been an important factor in the development of
CDS market liquidity and efficiency. Such investors enter primarily to take positions.
As described above, an investor who believes protection on a reference entity is
underpriced can buy protection in anticipation that spreads will widen; if the view
turns out to be correct, the fund reverses the transaction at a profit. Similarly, a fund
that believes that a distressed credit’s prospects will improve could sell protection in
the hope of unwinding at a profit if the improvement occurs.
In order to understand the novations problem, one must understand how OTC
derivatives trade. OTC derivatives do not trade in the same way as securities, that is,

by means of transfer of ownership. Instead, they trade “synthetically” by three differ-

ent means, each of which involves payment by one party to the other of a transaction’s
mark-to-market value. First, the parties can agree to a termination (or tear-up), under
which they agree to extinguish the original obligation following payment. Second, one
party can enter into an offsetting transaction, which leaves the original transaction in
place but effectively cancels out its economic effect. Finally, a party can enter into a
novation, also known as an assignment, under which the party (transferor) transfers its
rights and obligations under the transaction to a third party (transferee) in exchange
for a payment. Following the novation, the parties to the transaction are the transferee
and the remaining party. The ISDA Master Agreement requires a transferor to obtain
prior written consent from the remaining party before a novation takes place.
Until relatively recently, novations were relatively infrequent; the usual method
of exiting a transaction was an offsetting transaction. But as hedge funds have
become more active in CDS, novations have become increasingly common. Investors,
and especially hedge funds, tend to prefer to unwind through novation rather than
through offset because they are reluctant to incur credit exposure and the resulting
need to post collateral on the offsetting swap.4 And they generally prefer novation to
termination because termination limits unwind possibilities to the original counter-
party and can provide insights into trading strategies to the counterparty. As a result,
novations increased, especially as index trading grew; one estimate placed novations
at 40 percent of trade volume as of 2005 (CRMPG II 2005).
Novations became a problem because of participants’ failure to follow established
procedure. First, a hedge fund wishing to step out of a transaction via novation might
not obtain prior consent from the remaining party. Second, the transferee might not
verify that the transferor had obtained clearance. Finally, the remaining party, which
might not have been aware of the novation until the first payment date following,
might later back-date its books to the novation date and simply change the counter-
party name. The finger pointing went further: When dealers complained that investors
had failed to obtain consent, investors countered that remaining parties had given
consent but had failed to transmit the necessary information to the back office in a
timely manner. Although novations in such cases did not typically lead to significant
adverse credit exposures for dealers—transferees are virtually always dealers and
therefore better capitalized than the hedge fund transferors—they did present sub-
stantial operational problems in the form of confirmation backlogs.
The industry was aware of the problem. ISDA addressed the issue in 2004 by devel-
oping novation definitions, a standard novation confirmation, and a best-practices
statement. Regulators were also aware of the problem and in some cases expressed
concern publicly (Evans 2005). A solution did not ensue, however, because of compet-
itive pressures and the lack of incentive to act alone. On the one hand, dealers were
aware of the problem and would benefit if all parties to novations followed established
procedures. But on the other hand, refusing to agree to novations if procedures were
not followed would lead to losing potentially profitable business to those dealers that
did not insist on proper procedures. The industry consequently found itself in a “pris-
oners’ dilemma” situation in which each party would benefit from adhering to proper
procedures but had no means of knowing whether other parties would do so as well.
The result was no change, and confirmation backlogs increased.
4. Hedge funds generally post up-front collateral (known as the independent amount) with dealer
counterparties regardless of the direction of exposure. They then post additional collateral to
cover subsequent variations in exposure.

During August 2005, however, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President
Timothy Geithner invited fourteen major credit derivative dealers to a meeting to dis-
cuss CDS operations issues, with particular attention to confirmation backlogs. At the
meeting, which occurred the following month, the dealers agreed to reduce backlogs
and to report their progress periodically.
The effort to reduce backlogs led to increased efforts within ISDA to complete a
solution to the novations issue. The solution, known as the ISDA Novation Protocol,
was announced just before the New York Fed meeting in September (Raisler and
Teigland-Hunt 2006). The protocol entailed
extensive negotiation between dealers,
The entry of hedge funds and other
hedge funds, and other participants and
investors into credit derivatives has been specified a set of explicit duties for the
an important factor in the development parties to a novation. Under the protocol,
parties wishing to act as transferees are
of CDS market liquidity and efficiency.
required to obtain prior consent but are now
able to do so electronically. If the remain-
ing party provides consent prior to 6 PM New York time, the novation is complete; the
remaining party can respond by email. If the remaining party does not provide con-
sent prior to 6 PM, the transferor and transferee enter into an offsetting transaction
that obtains a similar economic result to the novation.
Market participants were given a deadline to sign on to the ISDA Novation
Protocol; dealers agreed not to transact novations with parties that did not agree. In
order to provide assurance that remaining parties would respond promptly to nova-
tion requests, dealers committed to specific standards for responding by the dead-
lines in the protocol. The result has been considered a success: 2,000 parties signed
on to the original Novation Protocol, and almost 190 entities have signed on to a
version designed for new participants.
Initial assessments of the protocol have been favorable. These assessments have
corresponded to reports that the industry has made considerable progress in reduc-
ing confirmation backlogs and increasing overall operational efficiency. According to
the New York Fed, by September 2006 the fourteen largest dealers had reduced the
number of all confirmations outstanding by 70 percent and of confirmations out-
standing past thirty days by 85 percent. Further, the dealers had doubled the share of
trades confirmed electronically to 80 percent of total trade volume (Federal Reserve
Bank of New York 2006).
The case of novations demonstrates that collective action problems can threaten
the feasibility of private sector efforts but that thoughtful regulatory action can facil-
itate a solution. Although all parties had an interest in a solution, none believed the
other side was willing to take the necessary steps. Further, competitive considera-
tions made dealers reluctant to exert pressure on one of their most active client groups.
The regulatory intervention provided sufficient cover for dealers to insist on adher-
ence by their clients. In this case, a relatively light touch by a regulator was sufficient
to bring about a solution.
CDS settlement following credit events. As mentioned earlier, credit deriva-
tive index trades have been the major factor in recent growth in credit derivatives.
The result of this growth was a new challenge, namely, that the amount of credit pro-
tection outstanding is far greater than the supply of underlying debt that could be
delivered if a credit event were to occur. The problem manifested itself in a series of
corporate bankruptcies in the North American auto parts companies (Collins & Aikman,
Delphi, Dana, and Dura), airlines (Delta and Northwest), and power companies

(Calpine). Because of the expanded interest in credit derivatives caused by the intro-
duction of indices, the amount of credit derivatives outstanding was in some cases
reported to be as much as ten times the amount of bonds actually available to settle
trades when a credit event occurs. This imbalance called into question the ability of
the industry to achieve traditional physical settlement in an orderly manner, which
led to calls by industry participants to substitute cash settlement for physical settle-
ment for index trades.
The problem was that existing CDS contracts called for physical settlement after
credit events. In addition, current documentation provides that the cash settlement
will be determined by dealer poll by each dealer, which was not considered feasible
given the large number of market participants that would be trying to buy deliverable
debt at the same time. With regard to the first problem, counterparties are free to
substitute cash for physical settlement if they so agree, but doing so on a large scale
could require bilateral negotiations between each pair of counterparties. Further,
developing an alternative to the dealer poll required a collective industry solution.
The solution proposed by ISDA was that firms move to cash settlement by means of
a protocol that allows market participants to amend their contracts on a multilateral
basis rather than engaging in bilateral negotiations. In essence, market participants
can agree to industrywide and standardized amendments to their contracts. Parties
that agree to be bound by the protocol’s terms effectively amend their credit deriva-
tive contracts without negotiating directly with other firms. In addition, the protocol
provided an alternative means by which a cash settlement price could be determined.
The protocol in this case allowed market participants to shift from physical set-
tlement to cash settlement using a price generated in an auction for the defaulted
bonds. In the first protocol, held in May 2005 for auto parts supplier Collins &
Aikman, there was a single deliverable obligation. The next protocol addressed the
bankruptcy filings of U.S. airlines Delta and Northwest, which offered multiple
deliverable obligations. Delphi, another auto parts company, was a particularly
challenging one as the volume of trades on the name was high: Merrill Lynch and
Fitch Ratings estimated that there was $28 billion of exposure on this name but
only $2.2 billion par value of bonds available and $3 billion in loans outstanding
(Fitch Ratings 2005).
Experience with subsequent credit events has led to what appears to be a long-
term solution. First, although cash settlement will be the standard, institutions will
have the option to settle physically with their dealers if they so choose. Second, the
cash settlement protocol will, unlike the early versions, apply to both index and
single-name CDS as well as other products such as swaptions. Third, the new system,
following further experience, will be incorporated into the next set of credit deriva-
tives definitions.
Remaining Issues
In considering the future of credit derivatives, two subjects come to mind. The first
is the potential for further innovation and growth of credit derivatives. The second is
the possibility that credit derivatives might evolve into a standardized, exchange-
traded product.
Growth and innovation could occur along several dimensions. One dimension is
type of contract. There have been some variations on the CDS such as credit swap-
tions and constant-maturity credit default swaps, but the CDS has proved to be an
adaptable product and is unlikely to be displaced. To the extent that product inno-
vation occurs, it is likely to take the form of structured finance applications tailored

to investor demands for tailored exposures. An example of such a product is the single
tranche CDO, which provides investors with exposure to credit risk through a cus-
tomized CDS portfolio.
Another dimension is type of risk. Until recently, CDS were written on entities or
groups of entities. But recent innovations have extended CDS protection to obligations
instead of industries. CDS on asset-backed securities, for example, have enabled
investors to access securitized risks without having to make a direct investment. As
a result, supply constraints are less of a factor. Other examples include CDS on lever-
aged loans and on preferred stock, which
again reference financial instruments of a
Growth and innovation of credit deriva-
particular type.
tives could occur along several dimensions: Yet another dimension is new market
type of contract, type of risk, and new participants. The major new entrant has
been hedge funds. Whether there are other
market participants.
significant entrants waiting in the wings is
not clear, however. Tables 2 and 3 suggest
that mutual funds and pension funds have shown some growth, but prudential
restrictions on allowable risks might continue to limit the role of such buy-side firms.
Second, retail investors might begin to participate, but the history of over-the-
counter derivatives, which have remained overwhelmingly wholesale in nature, sug-
gests that retail investors are unlikely to be a major factor. If retail investors do show
an appetite for credit investing, they will likely participate through banks and secu-
rities firms that serve as intermediaries. A third possibility is that regional banks will
increasingly participate in the market, possibly by selling protection as a means of
diversifying their portfolios. As Tables 2 and 3 show, however, bank portfolio man-
agers are significantly more likely to use credit derivatives to shed credit risk than to
take on credit risk.
A final possibility is that nonfinancial corporations might enter the market as they
have for interest rate, currency, and commodity derivatives, but so far they have not
done so in any significant way (Smithson and Mengle 2006). In the early days of credit
derivatives, corporations were considered a potential source of business because of
credit risks embedded in corporate balance sheets as receivables and supplier rela-
tionships. Further, corporate credit exposures could be a natural hedge for dealers’
exposures to investors and would help dealers balance their CDS portfolios at low
cost. Corporate activity did not materialize, however, largely because of basis risks:
The nature of corporate exposures is difficult to match with a specific amount of pro-
tection and possibly on a specific reference entity.
With regard to the evolution of credit default swaps into standardized, exchange-
traded futures contracts, several projects are under way as of this writing. First, futures
on the iTraxx Europe credit index began trading on Eurex on March 27, 2007. The
product is based on a five-year index with a fixed income; a new contract will be issued
every six months. The contract will be cash settled, with the payout based on the ISDA
CDS settlement auction. Second, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is developing a
futures contract on single-name credit default swaps. Contracts will be written on three
reference entities chosen by the exchange. If a credit event occurs, the contracts will
have a fixed recovery rate. The CME is also developing an index contract. Third, the
Chicago Board Options Exchange is developing a credit default option, which involves
an up-front payment and a binary payout of $100,000 per contract if a credit event
occurs. Finally, the Chicago Board of Trade and Euronext.Liffe are each planning
futures contracts based on a credit index, but details are not yet available.

The arguments for exchange-traded credit derivatives products are similar to

those for other types of derivatives. First, exchanges could provide enhanced liquid-
ity and price discovery by means of standardization and centralized trading. Second,
by making the exchange clearinghouse the counterparty to each trade and by impos-
ing universal margin requirements, credit futures could provide a means of reducing
counterparty credit risk to users. Finally, credit derivatives might in some cases pro-
vide a means for dealers to hedge their exposures as they do for interest rate, com-
modity, and equity derivatives.
Whether CDS trading migrates to exchanges will depend largely on the degree of
substitutability between over-the-counter CDS and the new credit futures products.
At the same time, whether CDS and credit futures will share the same complemen-
tarities that they have in other markets is not clear. With regard to substitutability,
OTC derivatives and futures compete to some degree as substitutes but, on closer
examination, tend to appeal to different groups of users. If investors perceive the
CDS market as being insufficiently liquid, or if counterparty risk is a major consider-
ation, then some volume might move to the exchanges. But index CDS appear to
have attained a high degree of liquidity already, so whether they will be motivated to
abandon dealers for exchanges is not yet clear.
With regard to complementarity, it is not apparent that futures would provide the
same hedging and price discovery function that they do for other over-the-counter
derivatives. Given the degree of standardization of CDS, dealers are apparently able
to trade balanced books without significant residual risks that need to be laid off on
exchanges. Further, dealers might not find price discovery information for a small
number of selected reference entities to be particularly useful. Still, if credit futures
attract significant liquidity, dealers might seek to incorporate the price information
into their risk management activities.
It is possible, however, that credit derivatives have already evolved into a mature
product and that future growth will resemble that of interest rate and other deriva-
tives. That is, products will become increasingly commoditized but will also become
known to a wider range of users. The past ten years have seen credit evolving from
a largely illiquid product into an increasingly tradable product in which risks are
managed in the same way as other market risks. Perhaps the next ten years will see
the spread of this new credit risk management technology more deeply and widely
into the financial system.

REFERENCES
Bank for International Settlements (BIS). 2007. Flannery, Mark. 1985. A portfolio view of loan selec-
Triennial and semiannual surveys on positions in tion and pricing. In Handbook for banking strategy,
global over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets edited by Robert A. Eisenbeis and Richard C. Aspinwall.
at end-June 2007, November. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
British Bankers Association (BBA). 2002. BBA credit International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2006. Global
derivatives report 2001/2002. London: BBA Enter- financial stability report, April.
prises Ltd.
Jackson, Tony. 2007. Derivative risk threatens private
———. 2006. BBA credit derivatives report 2006. equity. Financial Times, February 26.
London: BBA Enterprises Ltd.
Joint Market Practices Forum. 2003. Statement of prin-
Chaplin, Geoff. 2005. Credit derivatives: Risk man- ciples and recommendations regarding the handling of
agement, trading and investing. West Sussex, U.K.: material nonpublic information by credit market partic-
Wiley. ipants. International Association of Credit Portfolio
Managers, International Swaps and Derivatives Associa-
Choudhry, Moorad. 2004. Structured credit products: tion, Loan Sales and Trading Association, and the Bond
Credit derivatives and synthetic securitisation. Market Association.
Singapore: Wiley.
JPMorgan Chase. 2006. Credit derivatives handbook.
———. 2006. The credit default swap basis. New Corporate Quantitative Research, December.
York: Bloomberg Press.
Kroszner, Randall. 2007. Recent innovations in credit
Cilia, Joseph. 1996. Product summary: Asset swaps. markets. Credit Markets Symposium, Federal Reserve
Financial Markets Unit, Supervision and Regulation, Bank of Richmond, March 22.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, August.
Plender, John. 2006. The credit business is more per-
Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) ilous than ever. Financial Times, October 13.
II. 2005. Toward greater financial stability: A private
sector perspective, July. Raisler, Kenneth, and Lauren Teigland-Hunt. 2006. How
ISDA took on the confirmations backlog. International
Das, Satyajit. 2006. Traders, guns, and money. Financial Law Review, February.
Harlow, U.K.: Pearson.
Risky business. 2005. Economist, August 18.
Evans, Gay Huey. 2005. Operations and risk manage-
ment in credit derivatives markets. CEO Letter, Smithson, Charles. 2003. Credit portfolio manage-
Financial Services Authority, February. ment. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2006. Statement Smithson, Charles, and David Mengle. 2006. The
regarding progress in credit derivatives markets, promise of credit derivatives in nonfinancial corpora-
September 27. tions (and why it’s failed to materialize). Journal of
Applied Corporate Finance 18, no. 4:54–60.
Fitch Ratings. 2005. Delphi, credit derivatives, and
bond trading behavior after a bankruptcy filing, Spinner, Karen. 1997. Building the credit derivatives
November 28. infrastructure. Derivatives Strategy, Credit Deriva-
tives Supplement, June.
———. 2006. Global credit derivatives survey: Indices
dominate growth as banks’ risk position shifts, Taksler, Glen. 2007. Credit default swap primer,
September 21. 2d ed. Debt research, Bank of America, January 5.
———. 2007. CDx Survey, July 16.

Credit Derivatives: An Overview: David Mengle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credit Derivatives: An Overview: David Mengle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F AT L A N TA

How Credit Derivatives Work

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 1

XX basis points per annum

Protection buyer Protection seller

2 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

a bankruptcy-remote entity, known as a special-purpose vehicle, that stands between

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 3

in contrast to failure to pay or bankruptcy, it is not always clear what constitutes a

4 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

LIBOR + Funding cost

Total return swap

Total return (TR) = interest + fees ± (appreciation/depreciation) – default losses

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 5

LIBOR + 0.85% 6.30%

The Market for Credit Derivatives

6 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

Sources: BBA (2006); ISDA Market Surveys, 2001–07

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 7

2000 2002 2004 2006

Single-name credit default swaps 38 45 51 33

Source: BBA (2006)

8 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

Type of institution 2000 2002 2004 2006

Banks (including securities firms) 81 73 67 59

*Monoline insurers and reinsurers combined

Type of institution 2000 2002 2004 2006

Banks (including securities firms) 63 55 54 44

*Monoline insurers and reinsurers combined

transaction appealed to investors seeking yield enhancement by buying the credit-

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 9

2003 2004 2005 2006

JPMorgan Chase Deutsche Bank Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley

Source: Fitch Ratings (various years)

a partially funded structure, in which Morgan transferred to investors approximately

10 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

Largest by count Largest by volume

1 General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC General Motors/GMAC

Source: Fitch Ratings (2007)

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 11

discounted—worth about 40 cents on the dollar—relative to the restructured loans,

12 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

Pricing, Valuation, and Risk Management

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 13

PV(expected spread payments) = PV(expected n

using the following notation:

Spread = fixed CDS spread;

14 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 15

Benefits and Costs of Credit Derivatives

16 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 17

Recent Credit Derivatives Policy Issues

18 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

by means of transfer of ownership. Instead, they trade “synthetically” by three differ-

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 19

20 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 21

22 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

The arguments for exchange-traded credit derivatives products are similar to

ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007 23

24 ECONOMIC REVIEW Fourth Quarter 2007

You might also like