If sovereign CDS is no longer an effective hedge then who’s in trouble?

Current plans are for Greek restructuring to be ‘voluntary’, which means that it would fail to trigger CDS (see here).  CDS is supposed to be the cost of insuring against default.  If Greek restructuring fails to trigger CDS, then CDS would lose its credibility as an effective hedging instrument against sovereign default.  Such actions would  have absolutely huge implications as all the banks who have used CDS to buy protection against their sovereign debt, and have consequently reported very little net Eurozone peripheral sovereign debt exposure, in fact have much more exposure than everyone thinks.

So who’s in trouble?  Unfortunately, nobody really knows since a major problem with CDS is disclosure. It’s very difficult to figure out who has bought protection on a sovereign and who has written protection.  As we wrote here, BIS (The Bank for International Settlements) data from earlier this year suggested that the US banks were large writers of protection and the European banks big buyers of protection.  However the US banks in their results presentations claimed to have only small net exposures.

It’s a reasonably safe assumption, however, that on the whole European banks in core European countries would have been net buyers of protection (or at the very least large users of protection) as they will be the ones with a need to hedge exposure.  Indeed, in July Deutsche Bank reported that it cut its net Italian sovereign exposure from €8bn at the end of 2010 to €997m by the start of July and had hedged Italian exposure in its trading book by using CDS.  UBS this week announced €14bn gross exposure but a €9bn net exposure to sovereign bonds issued by Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and Belgium.

So the guys most at risk of sovereign CDS losing its credibility as a hedge are in all likelihood the large European banks.  It’s the last thing these banks need right now. What will be really interesting is whether or not the banks’ use of sovereign CDS as an effective hedge in accounting definitions remains allowable now that politicians have made a default without a credit event possible. And of course the EFSF/Eurozone rescue is also in trouble if CDS isn’t an effective hedge, since the EFSF is going to attempt to sell protection on new issues of sovereign bonds in order to get their new issue spreads down!

Discuss Article

  1. Ian Bright says:

    Appropriate questions and comments. The Macro Man blog also has an interesting write up and comment on (the demise of?) the developed country CDS market here http://macro-man.blogspot.com/2011/10/rip-dm-sovereign-cds-2006-2001.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MacroMan+%28Macro+Man%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

    Posted on: 28/10/11 | 12:36 pm
  2. FT Alphaville » Further reading says:

    […] – If CDS is broken, who suffers? […]

    Posted on: 31/10/11 | 7:55 am
  3. crazyhog says:

    Doesn’t this suggest US banks are the big winners since they sold CDS?

    Posted on: 31/10/11 | 9:11 am
    • david3 says:

      No. Think of CDS like insurance. If one is selling insurance, then the company is collecting the premiums, but have to payoff if there is an event covered by the contract. In the CDS world, if there is a credit event, defined by the contract, then the seller of the CDS would have to make a payout to the buyer of the CDS.

      Posted on: 31/10/11 | 1:24 pm
  4. FT Alphaville » Sovereign CDS — not dead yet, not even resting says:

    […] links: Sovereign volatility puts Basel III CVA charge in spotlight – Risk If sovereign CDS is no longer an effective hedge then who’s in trouble? – Bond Vigilantes Sovereign CDS questions remain – IFR RIP DM Sovereign CDS (2006-2011) […]

    Posted on: 01/11/11 | 4:46 pm

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.