The prospect for bigger haircuts on Greek government bonds is in the news, and so too is speculation about the CDS market. With that speculation, unfortunately, comes inaccuracies. Once again we will try to set the record straight — this time regarding an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal online edition by Athanasios Ladopoulos of Swiss Investment Managers.
The article cites a BIS report that “US creditors own just 5 percent of direct exposure to Greek debt. But they are indirectly exposed to at least 43 percent of such debt through CDSs, which total upwards of €25 billion.”
We honestly do not know where these numbers come from. There’s some US$485 billion of Greek debt outstanding. Five percent would be about US$25 billion. But 43 percent would be nearly US$210 billion!
Now compare this to the data at DTCC, which manages the CDS trade information warehouse that captures more than 98 percent of CDS trade volume. The Gross Notional exposure to Greek government bonds through CDS is $75 billion while the Net Notional exposure is a mere $3.7 billion. Which number to use? If Bank A writes protection on Greece for a client for, say, €25 million, and immediately buys protection from Bank B for the same €25 million, it will have Gross Notional exposure of €25 million and Net Notional exposure of zero. The Net Notional exposure of all the participants in the CDS market is $3.7 billion. This is not netted across participants. The longs are $3.7 billion and the shorts are $3.7 billion.
Perhaps Mr. Ladopoulos’ use of the word “indirect” refers to the credit risk creditors face if their counterparties default. Mr. Ladopoulos should then have referred to ISDA’s survey results and other literature. CDS counterparty risk is covered by collateral in almost all circumstances. Our most recent margin survey indicated that collateralization covered 93 percent of CDS transactions and the vast majority of collateral was cash.
We hate to see articles that are not completely researched “stir the pot.” there’s too much at stake for people to keep getting this wrong.
Latest
Refreshing the FX Definitions
A lot has changed in the FX derivatives market since 1998, when the last set of standard definitions for FX transactions were published. Trading volumes have grown substantially, and average daily turnover has risen by six times. Market practices have...
ISDA & EMTA Publish New FX Definitions
ISDA and EMTA, Inc., the trade association for emerging markets, have jointly published a revised set of standard definitions for foreign exchange (FX) derivatives transactions, which update key market practices and consolidate various FX and FX-related product templates and provisions...
ISDA Position Paper on SFDR Review
On February 27, ISDA and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) published a position paper on the European Commission’s (EC) proposed revisions to the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR 2.0). The paper welcomes the EC’s proposal as a...
ISDA Response to HKMA SFC Consultation on Clearing Rules
On February 27, ISDA responded to a joint consultation by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) and the Securities Futures Commission (SFC) on proposed amendments to schedule 2 of the clearing rules for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The proposed amendments introduce...