5353 cds contracts naked itemid 127

SAVE AND SHARE Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine RSS

The Real First Rule Of Regulation

Written by Matthew Hougan

Friday, 06 February 2009 02:46 (CET)

You’ve hinted at the real first rule of regulation, Paul: The need for regulation is inversely related to the level of transparency in the market.  The more transparency you have, the less regulation you need.

But I’m with Jim on the need for some regulation, and I want to comment particularly on your point about favoring naked CDS contracts.

 First, I hope we can all agree that there needs to be a lot more transparency in this market.  You never really knew what kind of exposure companies had in the CDS market. That lack of transparency allowed individual companies to take on more risk than the market might otherwise have allowed—vis AIG, which had $400 billion in CDS exposure.

But more broadly, why shouldn’t we ban naked CDS?  The risk of such contracts is obvious; they essentially leverage the impact of debt failures. They seem custom-designed to create a domino effect, and to exacerbate the boom and bust cycle of the economy.

Shouldn’t we stop that?  Shouldn’t we either ban naked CDS contracts, or, alternatively, regulate them like insurance and require them to be backed by sufficient pools of capital?

Regular CDS contracts have a clear value.  CDS contracts backed by walled-off capital make all the sense in the world.

But naked CDS contracts?  Why leverage up the impact of failure?


Latest comments on this feature

Post a Comment


(Limit 2,000


Home page:


Type in the displayed characters:
Email follow-up comments to my e-mail address

The views expressed by Paul Amery, Jim Wiandt and Matt Hougan are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation for any security.

[yasr_overall_rating size="large"]
error: Alert: Content is protected !!