Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Credit default swap


A credit default swap (CDS) is a financial in which one , the protection buyer, makes periodic payments to another , the protection seller, in exchange for a contingent triggered by a specified credit event—typically the default or bankruptcy of a reference entity such as a corporate borrower or issuer—on an underlying debt obligation. The allows the transfer of without the need to own or trade the reference asset, functioning akin to against default while enabling on creditworthiness. Developed in the mid-1990s by JPMorgan to exposures in its , the market initially facilitated for banks holding illiquid loans but rapidly evolved into a vehicle for broader and as trading volumes surged. By the early , notional outstanding exceeded $10 trillion, peaking at around $60 trillion before the 2008 global financial crisis, during which opaque positions amplified systemic risks, particularly through naked protection sales by insurers like AIG that lacked sufficient collateral, leading to taxpayer-funded bailouts exceeding $180 billion for AIG alone. Post-crisis reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act mandated central clearing and margin requirements for standardized to mitigate risk and enhance , reducing gross notional to approximately $8.5 trillion by late 2023 while preserving the instrument's utility for hedging corporate and sovereign debt.

Definition and Basic Mechanics

Parties Involved and Contract Essentials

A credit default swap (CDS) involves two primary parties: the protection buyer and the protection seller. The protection buyer, often a lender or bondholder seeking to hedge , pays periodic premiums to the protection seller. In return, the protection seller assumes the risk of loss from a credit affecting the reference entity, compensating the buyer upon such an . These parties typically enter the contract via over-the-counter agreements governed by the (ISDA) master agreement, which standardizes terms to facilitate trading. Essential elements include the notional amount, representing the of the protected without requiring of the underlying . The reference entity—such as a , , or specific like a —is explicitly named, with protection tied to its worthiness rather than the buyer's holdings. Premiums, known as the CDS spread, are quoted in basis points per annum on the notional (e.g., 100 basis points equals 1% annually) and paid quarterly until maturity or a credit event. Maturity terms range from 1 to 10 years, with 5-year contracts most common in practice, aligning with typical durations. Credit events triggering payout—defined by ISDA protocols—encompass , failure to pay principal or interest exceeding a (often $1 million), and in some jurisdictions, of terms. occurs via cash (notional minus recovery value) or physical delivery of defaulted obligations, with auctions determining recovery rates post-event. Contracts may include clauses limiting deliverable obligations, such as maturity caps on restructurings to curb .

Credit Events and Payout Triggers

Credit events in credit default swap (CDS) contracts are specified occurrences affecting the reference entity's ability to meet obligations, triggering the protection seller's payout to the buyer. These events are standardized under the (ISDA) Credit Derivatives Definitions, with the 2014 edition incorporating updates such as refined restructuring terms and a new governmental intervention credit event for financial entities to address bail-in scenarios. Standard credit events include:
  • Bankruptcy: The reference entity becomes insolvent or subject to formal winding-up proceedings under applicable law.
  • Failure to pay: Non-payment of principal or on a reference obligation exceeding a minimum threshold, typically after any .
  • : A reduction in the principal amount, rate, or maturity extension on a reference obligation, though often excluded or modified in North American contracts to reduce ambiguity and disputes.
  • Obligation acceleration: A reference obligation becomes due and payable earlier than scheduled due to .
  • Repudiation or moratorium: The reference entity disavows or imposes a moratorium on payments under obligations.
For financial reference entities, additional triggers encompass governmental intervention, such as bail-in actions that impair , introduced in the 2014 Definitions to capture regulatory resolutions without full . Upon occurrence, the protection buyer issues a credit event notice to the seller, detailing the event and supporting evidence. ISDA Determinations Committees, composed of major market participants, convene to assess and publicly confirm whether a credit event has transpired, promoting market-wide consistency and reducing litigation risk. Payouts are triggered post-confirmation and proceed via physical or cash . In physical settlement, the buyer delivers eligible defaulted obligations to the seller in exchange for the full notional amount. Cash settlement, now standard for most , computes the payout as the notional times (1 minus the recovery rate), where recovery is determined through an ISDA-organized of deliverable obligations to establish post-default .

Distinctions from Insurance and Guarantees

Credit default swaps (CDS) differ from traditional insurance contracts primarily in the absence of an insurable interest requirement for the protection buyer. In insurance, the policyholder must demonstrate a legitimate economic stake in the insured asset or event to prevent contracts from functioning as wagers, whereas CDS permit "naked" positions where the buyer holds no underlying exposure to the reference entity, enabling speculation on credit events without ownership of the referenced debt. This distinction arose from the derivative nature of CDS, standardized by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) since the 1990s, which treats them as bilateral agreements for risk transfer rather than indemnity against actual loss. Regulatory treatment further separates CDS from insurance. CDS fall under derivatives oversight, such as the U.S. Futures Modernization of 2000 and post-2008 Dodd-Frank provisions mandating central clearing for certain standardized contracts, without imposing insurance-style solvency reserves or capital adequacy rules on protection sellers. Insurance regulators, by contrast, enforce strict reserve requirements to ensure payout capacity, as seen in state-level guaranty funds for policyholders; CDS sellers rely instead on posting and netting agreements, which proved insufficient during the 2008 crisis when entities like AIG faced unmatched exposures. CDS contracts are also freely transferable via or under ISDA protocols, unlike insurance policies that typically require insurer consent and cannot be traded on secondary markets. Compared to financial guarantees, such as bank letters of credit or surety bonds, CDS lack a direct, unconditional obligation from the protection seller to the reference entity's . Guarantees involve a third-party guarantor stepping into the primary obligor's shoes upon , often regulated as banking products with on-balance-sheet treatment and higher capital charges under frameworks like . In CDS, payouts occur via cash settlement based on an auction-determined recovery rate applied to the notional amount—typically (1 - recovery rate) × notional—independent of the buyer's actual holdings, and subject to two-way payments including periodic premiums until maturity or trigger. This structure facilitates and in derivatives markets but exposes counterparties to bilateral , mitigated post-2008 through mandatory margining rather than guarantee-like enforceability.

Economic Functions and Market Uses

Hedging Against Credit Deterioration

enable entities exposed to assets, such as bonds or , to against the risk of the reference entity's deterioration or default without liquidating their holdings. By purchasing , the buyer transfers the to the seller in exchange for periodic premium payments, thereby isolating and mitigating potential losses from adverse events like or failure to pay. Banks and portfolio managers commonly employ for this purpose, particularly to manage unsecured exposures, as evidenced by regulatory data showing banks' propensity to such risks via the market. In a hedging , the protection buyer—typically holding the underlying instrument—pays a fixed (expressed in basis points) on the notional amount to the seller over the contract's , which ranges from 1 to 10 years. If a occurs, the seller compensates the buyer for the loss, calculated as the notional amount multiplied by (1 minus the recovery rate on the defaulted obligation), often determined via auction processes standardized by the (ISDA). This mechanism allows hedgers to retain the from their assets while offsetting , making CDS more efficient than alternatives like diversification or asset sales, which may introduce unintended market or liquidity risks. Empirical studies confirm CDS effectiveness in hedging, with single-name CDS spreads reflecting real-time assessments of borrower , enabling precise risk transfer for specific exposures rather than broad adjustments. For instance, during periods of credit stress, hedgers using CDS have demonstrated reduced net credit losses compared to unhedged positions, underscoring the instrument's role in stabilizing balance sheets amid borrower deterioration. However, hedging efficacy depends on factors like spread accuracy and reliability, as post-2008 reforms mandated central clearing for many CDS to mitigate systemic risks.

Enabling Speculation on Creditworthiness

Credit default swaps (CDS) enable speculation on the creditworthiness of reference entities by permitting "naked" positions, where participants buy or sell protection without holding the underlying obligation. This contrasts with traditional hedging, as naked CDS require no in the reference asset, allowing market participants to wager directly on the likelihood of default or credit deterioration solely through premium payments and potential payouts. Such contracts facilitate leveraged bets, where the notional amount covered can vastly exceed the initial premium outlay, amplifying potential gains or losses relative to direct investments or short-selling, which involve borrowing costs and requirements. To speculate on declining creditworthiness, an investor purchases CDS protection at a low spread (e.g., 500 basis points annually), anticipating that rising risk will widen spreads to, say, 1,500 basis points; the buyer can then unwind the position for a by selling equivalent protection at the higher rate or hold for a payout upon a . Conversely, to bet on improving or stable , the seller writes protection at elevated spreads, collecting premiums over the contract tenor (typically 5 years) if no occurs, effectively earning on an optimistic view of the entity's . These decouple from physical asset ownership, enabling rapid scaling of positions via over-the-counter trading, though they expose counterparties to risks absent central clearing. The scale of CDS speculation became evident in the mid-2000s, when the market's notional outstanding reached $62.2 trillion by the end of 2007, exceeding the value of underlying corporate and sovereign debt markets and indicating that hedging alone could not account for such volume. This proliferation fueled bets on subprime mortgage exposures during the , where speculators purchased CDS on collateralized debt obligations, profiting as defaults materialized and spreads surged, though it also contributed to strains when sellers like AIG faced massive payout obligations. Post-crisis analyses noted that while speculation via naked CDS enhanced for credit risks, it amplified systemic vulnerabilities by concentrating unhedged exposures among a few intermediaries. Regulations, such as the European Union's 2012 ban on naked sovereign CDS, aimed to curb such activity for government debt, but broader U.S. markets retained flexibility for speculative trading under Dodd-Frank mandates for clearing.

Facilitating Arbitrage Across Markets

Credit default swaps () enable by allowing market participants to synthetically replicate or exposures, exploiting pricing inefficiencies between the more liquid and the . The - basis—calculated as the minus the 's or over the —quantifies such discrepancies; a negative basis occurs when the is lower than the , implying the offers higher relative to the cost of protection. In this scenario, arbitrageurs buy the , purchase protection on the same reference entity, and finance the purchase through low-cost repo funding, locking in from the basis convergence assuming no , as the net carry ( minus minus funding cost) remains positive. Conversely, a positive basis—where the CDS spread exceeds the bond spread—prompts the opposite trade: shorting the bond (via or swaps) and selling CDS protection, collecting the higher premium while offsetting the short bond's cost. These trades, prominent in investment-grade corporate credits, rely on CDS standardization under ISDA protocols to ensure deliverable obligations align between markets, minimizing from mismatched recovery assumptions. Empirical data from 2004–2007 indicate average negative bases of 20–50 basis points for U.S. corporates, widening to over -200 basis points during the 2008 crisis due to illiquidity and effects, which amplified opportunities but also exposed limits from counterparty exposures and regulatory capital constraints. CDS also facilitate cross-market involving versus single-name contracts, such as discrepancies between CDX.IG spreads and underlying constituents, driven by hedging demand or premia. For instance, if the trades at a wider spread than the sum of single-name adjusted for , arbitrageurs sell index protection and buy single-name , profiting from mean reversion; analysis shows such index-single basis trades averaged 10–30 basis points pre-crisis, narrowing post-Dodd-Frank central clearing mandates that reduced settlement frictions. These mechanisms enhance overall market efficiency by propagating credit signals across venues, though persistent bases reflect structural barriers like dealer costs and heterogeneous investor mandates.

Historical Evolution

Origins in the 1990s

Credit default swaps emerged in the early as bilateral over-the-counter derivatives designed by major banks to transfer credit risk from portfolios to third-party counterparties, thereby alleviating regulatory capital burdens without requiring the sale of underlying assets that could strain client relationships. led the innovation, with its swaps team, including , engineering the first CDS transaction in late 1994 to exposure on a $4.8 billion credit line extended to an oil company. This structure involved the protection buyer paying periodic premiums to the seller, who would compensate for losses upon a credit event such as , effectively synthetically replicating while circumventing traditional regulations. Initial adoption was limited to a handful of institutions, including precursors at Bankers Trust as early as 1991, but the instruments gained traction among commercial and investment banks facing growing loan books amid economic expansion and emerging market lending. The OTC nature allowed customization to specific reference obligations, typically corporate bonds or loans, but also introduced counterparty risk and valuation challenges due to the absence of centralized pricing or clearing. Market volumes remained modest throughout the decade, reflecting nascent liquidity and reliance on dealer relationships rather than broad exchange trading. Standardization efforts by the (ISDA), originally formed in 1985, accelerated development toward the end of the , with the release of the first CDS confirmation template in 1998 paving the way for the 1999 master agreement that defined key terms like credit events and settlement protocols. This facilitated wider participation beyond banks, including insurers and hedge funds, though the market's total notional value stayed under $1 by decade's end, concentrated on investment-grade credits. Early CDS thus served primarily as hedging tools, enabling risk dispersion but foreshadowing complexities in opaque bilateral dealings.

Rapid Growth Through the Early 2000s

The notional amounts outstanding of credit default swaps expanded dramatically in the early , transitioning from a niche instrument to a cornerstone of credit markets. (BIS) data indicate that CDS outstanding notionals reached $6.3 trillion by the end of 2004, reflecting accelerated adoption by financial institutions for risk transfer. This marked a substantial increase from earlier years, with growth rates exceeding 50% annually in some periods, driven by the market's maturation following initial standardization efforts. By the end of 2005, outstanding notionals had surged to $13.7 trillion, including a 33% rise in the second half of the year alone, underscoring the instrument's appeal amid volatile credit conditions. Several empirical factors propelled this expansion. High-profile corporate defaults, including Enron's bankruptcy filing on December 2, 2001, and WorldCom's on July 21, 2002, elevated perceptions of in investment-grade debt, spurring demand for as a hedging mechanism against and defaults. Investors and banks, facing losses from these events totaling over $100 billion in market value for affected securities, increasingly turned to for targeted protection without selling underlying assets, preserving yield in portfolios. Regulatory incentives under evolving frameworks further catalyzed growth, as enabled banks to achieve capital relief by transferring to third parties, reducing required reserves against loans and bonds. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association's (ISDA) 2003 Credit Derivatives Definitions enhanced uniformity, reducing legal uncertainties and broadening participation beyond major dealers to include funds and insurers. This , building on the 1999 , improved and pricing efficiency, with single-name dominating early volumes. Emerging uses in amplified the trend, as underpinned synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), allowing creation of leveraged exposures without originating physical assets. Dealer banks, such as JPMorgan and major European institutions, actively intermediated, quoting tight spreads and netting positions internally to expand capacity for . By 2004-2005, gross notionals outpaced underlying debt markets, signaling not only hedging but also speculative on spreads widening post-default waves. This phase established as a primary tool for dynamic management, though concentrations in dealer exposures foreshadowed systemic interconnections.

Involvement in the 2008 Crisis

Credit default swaps (CDS) expanded dramatically in the years leading to the , with notional amounts outstanding reaching $62.2 trillion by the end of 2007, more than doubling annually from the late 1990s. This growth was fueled by their use to hedge and speculate on credit risks embedded in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), particularly those backed by subprime loans. CDS allowed banks and investors to transfer default risk off balance sheets, but the concentration of protection selling by entities like AIG created systemic vulnerabilities, as these instruments often lacked sufficient collateral or capital backing. A pivotal example was (AIG), which had issued CDS protection with a notional value of $527 billion as of December 31, 2007, including significant exposure to multi-sector CDOs totaling around $78 billion. As subprime mortgage defaults surged in 2007–2008, the underlying CDOs deteriorated, triggering mark-to-market losses and collateral demands on AIG. Rating agency downgrades on September 15, 2008, exacerbated this, leading to unmet collateral calls that threatened AIG's and necessitated a $182 billion U.S. government to prevent broader , as AIG's role as a major protection seller interconnected it with numerous counterparties. The episode highlighted how CDS amplified counterparty risk in an unregulated over-the-counter market, where sellers like AIG underestimated tail risks from correlated defaults in housing-related assets. The on September 15, 2008, tested the settlement mechanism amid $400 billion in outstanding contracts on its debt. An ISDA-organized auction determined recovery at 8.625 cents on the dollar, resulting in net payouts of approximately $5.2 billion from protection sellers to buyers, demonstrating the protocol's functionality despite market stress. However, the event underscored CDS's role in magnifying panic, as widening spreads signaled distress and forced across institutions, contributing to frozen credit markets. While CDS spreads had foreshadowed vulnerabilities in vulnerable credits earlier than prices, the instruments' speculative "naked" use—betting on defaults without owning the asset—intensified strains without providing the stabilizing insurance-like discipline. Overall, CDS did not originate the but propagated risks through and opacity, prompting post-crisis demands for central clearing and margin requirements.

Reforms and Market Adaptation Post-2008

Following the , which exposed vulnerabilities in the over-the-counter (OTC) credit default swap (CDS) market due to opacity and interconnected counterparty risks, G20 leaders in 2009 committed to reforms mandating central clearing, trade reporting, and margin requirements for standardized OTC derivatives, including CDS, to mitigate . In the United States, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, established Title VII to regulate swaps markets; it required clearing of eligible CDS contracts through central counterparties (CCPs) designated by the (CFTC), with final rules for CDS and interest rate swaps issued on November 28, 2012. The European Union's (EMIR), effective from August 16, 2012, imposed analogous requirements, including mandatory clearing for certain CDS indices and reporting of all derivatives trades to trade repositories to enhance transparency. Market participants, led by the (ISDA), implemented operational adaptations concurrently; the 2009 "" and "Small Bang" protocols standardized CDS contract terms, introduced cash settlement via auctions for credit events, and established ISDA Determinations Committees to resolve disputes objectively, reducing litigation risks observed during the crisis. These changes, combined with regulatory mandates, shifted much of the CDS market to CCPs; cleared CDS transactions rose from approximately 15% of the market in December 2007 to about 75% by April 2015, with further increases in subsequent years as more contracts became eligible. Post-reform adaptations included greater contract under ISDA's 2014 definitions, which facilitated cycles to net out offsetting positions, contributing to a in gross notional amounts outstanding—from a of around $60 trillion in 2007 to under $10 trillion by 2018—while maintaining hedging and functions. Enhanced trade reporting to repositories like the DTCC improved market transparency, enabling better regulatory oversight and reducing information asymmetries that amplified crisis-era spillovers, though some studies indicate a partial shift in price leadership dynamics away from relative to cash bonds due to these mandates. Overall, these reforms diminished the market's systemic footprint by curtailing uncleared bilateral exposures and speculative naked positions, fostering resilience without eliminating utility for transfer.

Developments from 2020 to 2025

In 2020, the triggered sharp increases in corporate and sovereign spreads, reflecting heightened default risks from disrupted cash flows and elevated discount rates amid global and economic contractions. The year recorded the highest number of credit default events since 2009, with CDS markets experiencing volatility peaks in as infection rates surged, though liquidity held amid interventions. sovereign CDS spreads widened due to lockdown fears and confidence erosion, amplifying contagion risks. Regulatory frameworks, shaped by post-2008 reforms, continued influencing CDS dynamics, with mandatory central clearing and margin requirements reducing counterparty risks but altering ; studies post-2020 confirmed CDS still led equity prices in many cases despite these constraints. In June 2020, FINRA extended an interim pilot under Rule 4240, adjusting margin thresholds for certain CDS to adapt to evolving market conditions without full deregulation. The 2022 caused explosive CDS spread widening, with Russia's five-year sovereign CDS surging over 400 basis points in the initial weeks to exceed 1,000 bps, driven by sanctions and economic isolation, while Ukraine's reached 10,951 bps by . This event heightened global risk , as evidenced by correlated spikes in European and energy-exposed sovereign CDS, underscoring CDS sensitivity to geopolitical shocks over fundamentals alone. From 2023 to 2025, CDS trading volumes rebounded, with CDS notional amounts climbing 55.4% to $2.5 trillion in Q2 2025, signaling renewed hedging demand amid and rate hikes. U.S. CDS spreads rose notably in 2025, with one-year premiums reaching 52 basis points by May from 16 at year-start, fueled by fiscal concerns and sustainability doubts, prompting hedging against potential downgrades. Overall, empirical reviews through mid-2025 affirmed CDS efficacy as hedges, though with persistent biases in pricing relative to realized defaults post-crisis regulations.

Contract Specifications

Core Terms: Premiums, Notional Amounts, and Tenors

In credit default swaps (CDS), the notional amount denotes the principal value of the reference obligation insured against credit events, serving as the reference for premium computations and contingent payouts. This amount does not involve actual principal exchange but defines the exposure transferred; for instance, a $10 million notional implies protection on equivalent to that sum. The premium, or CDS spread, comprises the fixed or floating payments from the protection buyer to the seller, expressed in basis points annually on the notional and typically disbursed quarterly in arrears until maturity or a . Post-2009 ISDA , contracts shifted to fixed coupons—100 basis points for investment-grade and 500 for speculative-grade—with an upfront adjusting for the prevailing to ensure at inception. This structure enhances by standardizing cash flows while accommodating varying risks through the upfront component. The specifies the contract's duration, aligning the protection period with the reference entity's debt horizon, commonly 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10 years, wherein the 5-year tenor predominates due to its alignment with benchmark bond maturities and superior market depth. Tenors cannot exceed the reference obligation's maturity to maintain economic equivalence, though mismatches can arise, influencing pricing via term structure analysis. These terms collectively delineate the CDS's risk transfer mechanics, with notional scaling exposure, premiums reflecting default probability costs, and tenor bounding temporal coverage.

ISDA Standard Documentation

The (ISDA) develops standardized contractual frameworks for over-the-counter derivatives, including (CDS), to promote , operational efficiency, and risk mitigation across global markets. These documents establish uniform terms that counterparties adopt, reducing negotiation time and disputes by providing predefined provisions for events such as defaults, settlements, and close-outs. The foundational element is the , available in 1992 and 2002 versions, which serves as the overarching bilateral contract governing all derivatives transactions between two parties, encompassing alongside other instruments. It includes a for counterparty-specific elections, such as governing law (typically English or ), termination events, and credit support annexes for requirements. For , the Master Agreement outlines general obligations like payment netting and close-out netting upon default, but defers product-specific terms to supplemental definitions and confirmations. CDS-specific standardization occurs through the ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, first published in 1999 and substantially revised in the 2003 edition to address growing market complexity, including detailed credit events like , failure to pay, and . The 2003 Definitions were supplemented post-2008 with terms for auction-based settlements, standardized upfront payments, and determinations committees to resolve ambiguities in credit events and recovery rates. These were consolidated and updated in the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, effective September 22, 2014, which refined mechanics—limiting them to North American or variants—and introduced provisions for credit default swaps on sovereigns or indices to align with regulatory reforms like Dodd-Frank and . Individual CDS trades are documented via Confirmations, short-form agreements referencing the Master Agreement and applicable Definitions, specifying transaction details such as the reference entity, notional amount, premium rate, (e.g., 5 years), and settlement method (physical delivery or cash via auction). Confirmations may include clauses negotiated for non-standard features, like events for distressed restructurings, but adherence to ISDA standards minimizes legal risks, as evidenced by widespread adoption where over 90% of CDS notional uses these templates. Protocols, such as the Credit Derivatives Definitions , allow multilateral amendments to trades for consistency with updated Definitions, with over 800 adherents by 2015 facilitating seamless market transitions.

Customization and Negotiation Clauses

Credit default swap (CDS) contracts are primarily governed by standardized documentation from the (ISDA), including the and Credit Derivatives Definitions, which provide a common framework to reduce time and legal . However, parties retain flexibility to customize and negotiate certain clauses via the to the Master Agreement and transaction-specific confirmations, allowing tailoring to particular risk profiles, reference entities, or market conditions. A core area of involves the definition of credit events that trigger protection payments, such as , failure to pay, obligation default, obligation acceleration, and . , in particular, can be customized: parties may elect "full " (covering broad modifications), "modified " (limiting to specific obligations), or exclude it entirely to avoid disputes over minor changes, as seen in historical variations where inclusion of affected contract pricing and . These choices influence the contract's sensitivity to issuer-specific distress, with data from 2003 showing modified dominating North American corporate quotes due to its balance of protection breadth and deliverability constraints. Other negotiable terms include the reference entity (e.g., a or ) and eligible obligations, notional amount, (typically 1-10 years), and settlement method—physical of defaulted bonds or via ISDA auctions. Parties may also negotiate succession events (e.g., mergers transferring obligations), governing law (often or English), and mechanisms to address jurisdiction-specific risks. For needs, such as index tranches or single-name protection on non-standard credits, confirmations supplement standards with additional provisions on upfront payments or accrued premiums. Negotiations typically occur bilaterally in the over-the-counter market, where dealers propose terms based on prevailing conventions, but customization enables hedging specific exposures, such as limiting protection to senior debt tranches. Post-2008 reforms via Dodd-Frank and EMIR have pushed more standardized CDS toward central clearing, yet non-cleared contracts retain these negotiation flexibilities, subject to margin requirements and reporting. Empirical evidence from market data indicates that customized restructuring elections persist, with exclusion more common for investment-grade references to minimize basis risk between CDS and underlying bonds.

Valuation and Risk Assessment

Probability-Driven Pricing Models

Probability-driven pricing models for credit default swaps, commonly known as reduced-form or intensity-based models, conceptualize default as an exogenous event arriving according to a intensity process, rather than endogenously tied to firm asset values. These models estimate default probabilities directly from , such as yields or CDS spreads, under a . The hazard rate λ(t) governs the instantaneous default probability, with the survival probability to time t given by Q(τ > t) = exp(-∫₀ᵗ λ(s) ds), where τ denotes the default time modeled as the first arrival of a doubly process. The CDS spread c is calibrated such that the discounted of premium payments equals the discounted of protection payments. The premium leg consists of fixed periodic payments c × notional until maturity T or , discounted and weighted by probabilities: approximately ∑ c Δ_i P(0, t_i) Q(τ > t_i), where Δ_i is the accrual period, P(0, t_i) is the risk-free to payment date t_i, and payments are typically quarterly. The protection leg captures the upon : ∫₀ᵀ (1 - R) P(0, t) λ(t) Q(τ > t) dt, where R is the recovery rate (often assumed constant at 40% for unsecured debt based on historical data). requires premium leg PV = protection leg PV, yielding c ≈ [∫₀ᵀ (1 - R) P(0, t) λ(t) Q(τ > t) dt] / [∑ Δ_i P(0, t_i) Q(τ > t_i)], often solved numerically for term-structured λ(t) fitted to the term structure. ![Cds_paymentstream_protection_loss_event.svg.png][center] Pioneering formulations include the Jarrow-Turnbull model, introduced in , which employs a or continuous-time for the "health" state of the reference entity, deriving default probabilities from dynamics and observable spreads to price default-contingent claims like . In this framework, default risk is captured via transition probabilities in a binomial lattice, allowing calibration to prices and extension to by valuing contingent premium streams and loss-given-default payments. The model assumes no and risk-neutral valuation, with intensity derived inversely from credit spreads net of funding costs. The Duffie-Singleton model, developed in and applied to in subsequent work, equivalently transforms defaultable cash flows into risk-free equivalents by adjusting the with a credit spread λ(t)(1 - R), simplifying valuation to an under modified rates. For , the fair spread U satisfies U = [B(h, T) / A(h, T)] × f, where h is the hazard rate (e.g., 4% implying 400 basis points spread for zero recovery), A(h, T) prices the defaultable for premiums, B(h, T) values a unit payment at default, and f = 1 - R. Assumptions include non-defaultability, constant recovery independent of default timing, and no , with extensions for intensity via affine diffusions for tractability. These models facilitate hazard rates from CDS quotes across maturities (e.g., 1Y to 10Y), assuming piecewise constant intensity between dates, and are widely used for marking-to-market due to their flexibility in fitting observed spreads without firm-specific data. Empirical often reveals implied intensities rising with for distressed credits, reflecting cumulative . Limitations include sensitivity to assumptions—misestimating R by 10% can bias spreads by 20-50 basis points—and inability to predict defaults out-of-sample, as intensities are market-implied rather than forward-looking fundamentals.

No-Arbitrage Frameworks

No-arbitrage frameworks for (CDS) valuation establish pricing consistency by ensuring that the contract's payoffs can be replicated using portfolios of reference entity and risk-free securities, thereby preventing riskless profits. These frameworks equate the (PV) of the leg—consisting of periodic fixed payments until or maturity—to the PV of the protection , which delivers the loss given default (notional amount minus recovery value) upon credit event, all under the . Default times are modeled via intensity processes or extracted from prices, with rates calibrated to match observed credit spreads while maintaining arbitrage-free dynamics. A core replication argument, developed by Duffie in 1999, posits that a CDS synthetically replicates the difference between a risk-free floating-rate note and a credit-risky floating-rate note issued by the reference entity. The protection seller receives premiums akin to coupons on the risky note and pays out upon default, mirroring the credit spread compensation; under no-arbitrage with par instruments, zero recovery adjustments, and no counterparty risk, the CDS spread equals the asset swap spread on the reference bond. Deviations occur for fixed-coupon bonds due to pull-to-par effects, but the framework adjusts via annuity factors: the exact spread s satisfies s \times \text{PV01} = (1 - R) \int q(t) e^{-rt} dt, where PV01 is the risky annuity value, R is recovery rate, q(t) default density, and r risk-free rate. Hull and White's 2000 model formalizes this by bootstrapping cumulative default probabilities from corporate bond prices relative to Treasuries, assuming independence of rates, defaults, and constant recovery (e.g., 48.84% historical average from Moody's data through 1999). The premium leg PV incorporates survival probabilities and accrual payments post-default notification, while the protection leg discounts expected claims; no-arbitrage is enforced as the CDS-bond portfolio replicates a Treasury strip, yielding the spread formula s = \frac{\int_0^T (1 - \hat{R}) q(t) v(t) dt}{\int_0^T A(t) q(t) v(t) dt + \pi(T) u(T)}, approximated as yield spread times recovery adjustment for short tenors. This calibration ensures model-implied bond prices match market data, ruling out arbitrage across maturities. Empirical applications reveal persistent CDS-bond basis deviations from zero—e.g., positive basis pre-2008 due to constraints—indicating frictions like funding costs and liquidity premia, yet the framework bounds and informs relative trades. In reduced-form extensions, intensity models (e.g., processes) preserve no-arbitrage by , with spreads sensitive to in but calibrated to term structure data as of contract inception. These approaches underpin market standards, such as ISDA model implementations, prioritizing observable inputs over structural defaults for consistency.

Key Sensitivities and

Credit default swaps exhibit sensitivities to several underlying parameters in their valuation, which are analogous to the in option pricing but tailored to dynamics. The primary sensitivity measures include the credit spread 01 (CS01 or credit DV01), which quantifies the change in the CDS's mark-to-market value for a 1 parallel shift in the credit curve, typically reflecting shifts in hazard rates or survival probabilities. For a buyer, an increase in spreads widens the value positively, as higher implied enhances the expected relative to premiums. The risky of a (RPV01), also known as risky DV01, captures to factors by measuring the impact of a 1 shift in the risk-free or funding curve on the of expected cash flows, adjusted for default probabilities along each leg. Unlike standard DV01 in , RPV01 incorporates survival probabilities, making it shorter for riskier credits where earlier default truncates distant flows; for instance, RPV01 approximates the premium leg's duration under no-default assumptions but diminishes with higher . DV01 (IR DV01) isolates pure effects, excluding credit adjustments. Recovery rate sensitivity assesses the change in CDS value from a 1% shift in the assumed recovery rate upon , which directly scales the leg's payoff as equals 1 minus recovery. Empirical recovery rates average around 40% for corporate bonds, but market-implied rates vary; a higher recovery assumption reduces for buyers, amplifying sensitivity in high-spread CDS where payouts dominate. Jump-to- risk measures the immediate shift assuming instantaneous at current recovery levels, often approximated as notional times (1 - recovery rate) discounted to the valuation date. These sensitivities are computed via approximations in models, bumping input curves or parameters and recalculating present values of the and legs under no-arbitrage or reduced-form frameworks. For portfolio risk management, they facilitate hedging; for example, CS01 hedges match spread exposures across or bonds, while RPV01 informs swaps for matching. Bucketed versions dissect sensitivities across maturities or curve segments for precise curve risk attribution.

Settlement Procedures

Physical Delivery Processes

In physical delivery settlement of a , upon confirmation of a credit event such as a failure to pay or of the reference entity, the protection buyer delivers eligible deliverable obligations—typically bonds or loans issued by the reference entity—to the protection seller, who in turn pays the buyer the full (100%) of the notional amount, adjusted for the of the delivered obligations. This mechanism transfers the actual defaulted assets, allowing the seller to potentially recover value through or , while compensating the buyer for the credit loss. Physical delivery has historically been the default method in ISDA-standard CDS contracts, though its use has declined with the rise of auction-based cash settlement since 2005. The process begins with the protection buyer submitting a Notice of Physical Settlement (NOPS) to the seller, specifying the Deliverable Obligations to be delivered, including their outstanding principal amounts and characteristics. Deliverable Obligations must satisfy strict criteria outlined in the ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, such as being with or senior to the reference obligation, having a minimum remaining maturity (often at least one year from the delivery date), being fully transferable without consent restrictions, and not exceeding specified subordination levels. The buyer retains the "cheapest-to-deliver" option, enabling selection of the least valuable eligible obligation among multiple candidates to maximize the net payout, which can introduce basis risk if the delivered asset's recovery differs from market expectations. Delivery must occur within the contractual delivery period, typically up to 30 calendar days following the NOPS or the credit event notice, whichever is later, to mitigate ongoing market volatility. Actual transfer involves standard securities settlement procedures, often via custodians or clearing systems like Euroclear or DTCC, with the seller paying the notional upon confirmation of receipt and validity of the obligations. Failure to deliver valid obligations may result in partial or no payment, and disputes over eligibility are resolved per ISDA protocols, potentially involving dealer polls for valuation if partial delivery occurs. This method exposes participants to operational risks, including shortages of deliverable obligations in stressed markets, which contributed to liquidity squeezes during events like the 2008 Lehman Brothers default.

Cash Settlement and Auction Mechanics

In cash settlement of credit default swaps (CDS), following a credit event such as a on the , the protection seller pays the protection buyer an amount equal to the notional principal multiplied by the loss percentage, calculated as 1 minus the expressed as a fraction of . The is determined via a standardized process administered by the (ISDA), which establishes a uniform market-based price for deliverable obligations to facilitate consistent payouts across contracts, particularly when outstanding CDS notional exceeds the available supply. This mechanism, formalized in ISDA's 2009 protocols, replicates the economic outcome of physical settlement while avoiding logistical challenges like squeezes. The auction process commences after the ISDA Determinations Committee confirms a event and publishes a list of deliverable obligations, typically within 3 to 5 business days, allowing for challenges and finalization via committee vote or external review. Participating CDS dealers, who handle submissions on behalf of participants, first engage in an initial bidding phase where they provide inside bid and offer prices for a small fixed notional amount, such as $2 million, spaced at intervals like 2% of par. The best half of these submissions yield the inside midpoint (IMM), which serves as a reference for subsequent caps, while net open interest (NOI)—the imbalance between net protection buyers and sellers intending physical settlement—is calculated to gauge directional demand. The core auction then proceeds in a specific bidding phase, akin to a , where dealers submit limit orders to absorb the NOI: if NOI reflects net selling pressure (excess protection sellers), bids are matched starting from the highest until the imbalance clears; conversely for net buying. The final emerges as the highest accepted bid (or lowest accepted offer) that exhausts the NOI, subject to caps of the IMM plus or minus half the initial bid-offer spread to prevent . For instance, in the 2008 , the IMM was 9.75 with NOI of $4.92 billion to sell, resulting in a final of 8.625 after matching. Similarly, the 2017 Toys "R" Us yielded a final of 26 amid $81 million NOI to sell. Post-auction, cash-settled contracts reference the final price for payouts on the designated cash date, typically shortly after finalization, with any unmatched eligible for fallback physical requests up to specified limits like $100 million per participant. This process has conducted over 43 auctions since 2005, achieving high participation rates around 95% and recovery prices closely aligned with secondary markets, thereby enhancing efficiency by netting gross exposures— as seen in Lehman, where $72 billion gross reduced to $5.2 billion net. While effective for liquidity and uniformity, auctions incorporate anti-manipulation safeguards, though dealer dominance in positions can influence outcomes.

Regulatory Landscape

Pre-Crisis Environment and Oversight Gaps

Prior to the , the market operated primarily as an over-the-counter (OTC) segment, characterized by bilateral contracts negotiated directly between counterparties without centralized trading or mandatory . The market experienced , with gross notional amounts outstanding expanding from approximately $180 billion in 1997 to $34.4 trillion by the end of 2006, and peaking at around $62.2 trillion in late 2007. This surge was driven by demand for hedging and , particularly on corporate and products, but occurred in an environment of minimal regulatory intervention that obscured systemic exposures. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000 played a pivotal role in shaping this laissez-faire regime by granting broad exemptions for OTC derivatives, including CDS, from oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and prohibiting routine regulation of swaps by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Under the CFMA, CDS qualified as "swap agreements" excluded from securities laws such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allowing them to evade registration, disclosure, and antifraud provisions typically applied to exchange-traded instruments. This framework treated sophisticated institutional participants as capable of self-regulating risks, assuming limited need for public oversight, which aligned with prevailing free-market philosophies but overlooked potential externalities from interconnected leverage. Oversight gaps were pronounced in several areas, including the absence of central clearinghouses, which left credit risks unmitigated and concentrated among a handful of dealers; for instance, five major banks intermediated over 80% of transactions by 2007, amplifying potential contagion. No mandatory margin or requirements existed for non-cleared trades, enabling entities like insurers to under-reserve against massive exposures—AIG Financial Products alone held over $440 billion in notional protection sold by mid-2008 without adequate hedges. Furthermore, the lack of trade reporting or position limits fostered opacity, as contracts were customized and privately held, preventing regulators from monitoring aggregate leverage or speculative "naked" positions where buyers held no underlying reference assets. These deficiencies contributed to underestimation of tail risks during the subprime downturn, as evidenced by the rapid unraveling of values on mortgage-related entities, though proponents of contend the market's innovation in mitigated some localized defaults pre-crisis. Empirical analyses post-crisis, however, highlight how bilateral netting assumptions failed under , exposing gaps in adequacy and resolution mechanisms for intermediaries.

Post-2008 Mandates: Central Clearing and Margins

Following the 2008 financial crisis, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, introduced mandates for central clearing of standardized over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, including specific classes of credit default swaps (CDS), to mitigate systemic risk by shifting counterparty exposure to central counterparties (CCPs). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were empowered to designate swaps for mandatory clearing through registered derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), with the first CDS clearing requirements applying to certain untranched broad-based index CDS on North American and European corporate indices. Mandatory clearing for these CDS classes commenced on March 11, 2013, for certain counterparties, expanding to cover approximately 75% of interest rate swaps and CDS notional amounts by mid-decade. In the , the (EMIR), which entered into force on August 16, 2012, similarly required central clearing of certain OTC derivative classes through authorized CCPs to reduce and operational risks. EMIR's clearing obligation encompasses specific categories, such as fixed-rate index CDS on Europe and CDX indices, with implementation phased by type and size, beginning for financial counterparties in 2016. The (ESMA) maintains a public register of cleared classes, ensuring only standardized, liquid meeting criteria like sufficient volume and low concentration qualify. For non-centrally cleared CDS, post-2008 reforms imposed margin requirements under (BCBS) and (IOSCO) frameworks, finalized in 2013 and 2015, mandating bilateral exchange of variation margin (VM) to cover daily mark-to-market changes and initial margin (IM) to buffer potential future exposures. VM posting became effective September 1, 2016, for major dealers, while IM phased in from September 2016 to September 2022 based on aggregate average notional exposure thresholds, starting at €3 trillion and descending to €8 billion, with CDS treated as non-segregated subject to haircuts. These rules apply to uncleared OTC derivatives globally for entities under jurisdictions, prohibiting rehypothecation of IM beyond limited percentages and requiring gross posting without netting across parties.

Effects on Market Dynamics and Innovation

Post-2008 regulatory mandates, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act enacted on July 21, 2010, in the United States and the adopted on July 4, 2012, in the , imposed central clearing obligations on standardized , particularly index products, alongside mandatory initial and variation margin requirements for uncleared trades. These reforms aimed to mitigate systemic risks exposed during the 2007-2009 , such as those from uncleared CDS exposures at institutions like AIG, by shifting risk to central counterparties (CCPs) and enhancing through trade reporting. indicates that central clearing reduced bilateral exposures, with cleared volumes rising to over 80% of index notional by 2015, fostering greater netting efficiency and collateral optimization across portfolios. Market dynamics shifted toward improved resilience but at the cost of higher operational frictions. Variation and initial margin requirements, phased in from 2016 under rules from bodies like the and , elevated funding costs for market participants, contributing to a contraction in gross CDS notional outstanding from a peak of approximately $58 trillion in 2007 to around $8 trillion by mid-2018, though compression cycles and reduced speculative activity also played roles. Liquidity metrics, such as bid-ask spreads, showed mixed but generally non-adverse responses; studies of voluntary clearing at platforms like Clear Credit found slight liquidity enhancements post-clearing adoption, attributed to reduced informed trading fears from greater post-trade transparency, while single-name CDS spreads widened modestly by 14-19 basis points due to CCP risk premia. However, these mandates amplified collateral demand during stress periods, potentially heightening systemic risks in interconnected CCP ecosystems, as modeled in frameworks where margin procyclicality could exacerbate fire sales. Regarding innovation, regulations standardized eligible CDS contracts for clearing, prioritizing liquid index tranches over bespoke single-name deals, which narrowed the scope for customized hedging but streamlined infrastructure development, such as multilateral netting protocols that reduced gross exposures by up to 50% in compressed portfolios. This shift diminished the CDS market's pre-crisis role in leading price discovery for underlying bonds, with empirical analyses post-reform showing attenuated spillovers from CDS innovations to cash bond returns, reflecting a more segmented and regulated trading environment. While barriers to entry for non-standard variants like loan CDS persisted due to clearing exemptions, the safer bilateral framework arguably redirected innovation toward compliant extensions, including enhanced risk models incorporating CCP default fund contributions, though overall product diversity contracted compared to the opaque pre-crisis era.

Market Characteristics and Data

Evolution of Notional Volumes and Liquidity

The gross notional amount outstanding in the credit default swap (CDS) market expanded rapidly from the early , reaching a peak of approximately $61.2 trillion by the end of 2007, driven by increased demand for transfer amid low interest rates and buoyant markets. This surge reflected a broader growth in over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, with CDS volumes rising steadily before accelerating sharply in the lead-up to the 2007-2008 , as institutions sought to or speculate on corporate and structured credit exposures. ![CDS notional outstanding compared to total nominals and debt][center] Post-crisis, gross notional amounts contracted significantly, halving to around $30 by late 2010, due to widespread portfolio compression exercises that netted offsetting positions, regulatory interventions curbing speculative activity, and a flight to simpler hedging instruments. By mid-2024, outstanding notional had stabilized at $9.0 , a decline of about 9% from the prior period, encompassing both single-name and CDS, with the reduction attributable to ongoing netting, maturity of legacy contracts, and higher capital requirements under post-2008 reforms like Dodd-Frank and . This compression primarily affected gross measures, as net exposure (reflecting actual risk transfer) remained more stable relative to underlying markets. Liquidity in the CDS market evolved from fragmented, dealer-dominated bilateral trading pre-crisis to a more centralized structure post-2008, with central clearing rates rising from near zero to over 70% for CDS by the early 2020s, enhancing systemic resilience but increasing operational costs for participants. Single-name CDS liquidity has trended downward since , with declining trading volumes and wider bid-ask spreads for most reference entities outside major names, while products like CDX and captured the bulk of activity due to their and lower transaction costs. Overall improved during stress events like the period, as liquidity rebounded quickly, but persistent dealer balance sheet constraints under have limited on-the-run trading for less liquid single-name contracts.

Sources for Real-Time Pricing and Indices

Real-time pricing for credit default swaps (CDS) is primarily sourced from data vendors that aggregate executable quotes, spreads, and liquidity metrics from major market makers and clearinghouses. S&P Global provides one of the most comprehensive CDS pricing datasets, drawing from over 4 million daily data points contributed by more than 20 market makers through official books, live quotes, and clearing submissions, covering single-name CDS, indices, tranches, options, and sector curves. ICE Data Services offers integrated CDS pricing solutions, including real-time spreads and settlement levels for cleared instruments, delivered via APIs, SFTP, or curve viewers to support analytics and risk workflows. Bloomberg terminals deliver and historical CDS information, including spreads and valuations for single names and indices, enabling extraction of live for analysis. Tradeweb facilitates access to pricing, axes, and liquidity from leading dealers for single-name CDS and indices, including emerging markets, through platforms. For CDS indices, which serve as standardized benchmarks for credit risk exposure, S&P Global administers the primary families: CDX for North American and emerging market corporate credits, and iTraxx for European, Asian, and emerging market counterparts, with on-the-run series updated quarterly based on constituent selection processes. ICE publishes daily settlement prices for CDX and iTraxx indices cleared through its platforms, available publicly for key tenors like 5-year, alongside full datasets for subscribers. These index levels reflect composite market pricing, incorporating dealer inputs and auction outcomes to gauge sector-wide default probabilities.

Corporate Versus Sovereign Applications

Corporate CDS contracts primarily facilitate hedging against default risk on individual firms' debt obligations, such as or loans, allowing investors to protect holdings or speculate on deteriorating corporate fundamentals like declines or increases. These instruments are integral to corporate portfolios, where protection buyers—often banks or asset managers—pay periodic premiums to sellers in exchange for payouts upon credit events, enabling efficient risk transfer without selling underlying . Applications extend to strategies exploiting mispricings between CDS spreads and yields, with corporate CDS spreads typically reflecting firm-specific metrics including health and industry conditions. Sovereign CDS, by comparison, address credit risk on government debt, hedging exposures to fiscal policy shifts, currency devaluations, or political instability rather than operational failures. These contracts are frequently used by institutional investors to manage country-level risk in fixed-income allocations, particularly for emerging market sovereigns where bond liquidity may lag. Unlike corporate applications, sovereign CDS pricing incorporates macroeconomic variables and geopolitical events, such as debt restructurings or IMF interventions, leading to heightened volatility during crises like the 2010-2012 European sovereign debt episode. Market scale underscores these distinctions: in 2023, corporate single-name represented 69.6% of total CDS trading activity, up from 54.5% in 2019, while CDS fell to 29.8% from 44.7%, reflecting post-crisis shifts toward diversified corporate risk amid regulatory emphasis on clearing. notional amounts totaled approximately $1.2 trillion as of June 2022, comprising just 13% of the overall CDS market, compared to the dominant corporate segment driven by thousands of reference entities versus dozens of sovereigns. Liquidity profiles diverge as well, with corporate CDS benefiting from broader participation and tighter bid-ask spreads due to high-volume trading in investment-grade and high-yield names, whereas sovereign CDS liquidity clusters around liquid benchmarks like or but thins for smaller issuers, often exceeding underlying sovereign bond markets in tradability during stress. Settlement mechanics further differentiate: corporate CDS recognize as a trigger, permitting physical delivery of reorganized claims, while sovereign variants omit —absent legal frameworks for state —and emphasize failure-to-pay or events, resolved via ISDA auctions to mitigate disputes over deliverable obligations' . This structure has historically amplified payout uncertainties in sovereign defaults, as seen in Argentina's 2001 where recovery rates varied widely.

Controversies and Broader Impacts

Assertions of Systemic Risk Amplification

Assertions that amplified during the centered on their role in concentrating uninsured exposures among a limited number of counterparties, such as insurers lacking sufficient capital buffers. Proponents of this view, including analyses from the , argued that CDS enabled the packaging and resale of mortgage-related risks through collateralized debt obligations, spreading initial subprime losses into broader market disruptions via leveraged protection selling. For example, (AIG) had issued CDS with a gross notional value of approximately $527 billion by mid-2008, including $441 billion on super-senior tranches of mortgage-backed securities, without commensurate reserves to cover potential payouts. When underlying defaults materialized, AIG incurred $28.6 billion in losses on these mortgage-linked CDS in 2008, triggering collateral calls it could not meet and necessitating an initial $85 billion federal bailout on September 16, 2008, to avert counterparty defaults among major banks. This concentration exemplified how CDS facilitated "risk amplification" through interconnected counterparty obligations, where the failure of one large seller could propagate strains across the . Scholarly assessments, such as those examining financial innovations' effects, contended that allowed synthetic exceeding the underlying asset base, turning localized declines into global freezes as buyers demanded simultaneous settlements. Global CDS notional outstanding reached about $55 trillion by mid-2008, far surpassing the size of the referenced corporate and debt markets, which critics like those in post-crisis reviews claimed obscured true and encouraged by decoupling from ownership. AIG's exposures, held primarily by its under-regulated Financial Products unit, illustrated this dynamic: rating downgrades in 2008 escalated margin requirements, forcing asset fire sales that pressured broader markets and required the U.S. government to ultimately disburse over $180 billion in support to stabilize interconnected institutions. Further assertions highlighted CDS markets' opacity and over-the-counter structure as enablers of underestimation of tail risks, with empirical reviews post-crisis attributing amplified to uncollateralized trades that turned credit events into systemic events. For instance, studies on derivatives' role in crises noted that permitted speculative positions unrelated to hedging, inflating notional volumes and creating feedback loops where widening spreads signaled distress but also intensified funding pressures on sellers. These claims, echoed in regulatory , posited that without CDS, risks would have remained more contained within originating institutions rather than diffused into a web of bilateral contracts vulnerable to sequential failures.

Empirical Benefits in Risk Dispersion and Price Discovery

Credit default swaps (CDS) enable the dispersion of by permitting holders of debt instruments to transfer default exposure to specialized counterparties, such as hedge funds and insurers, thereby reducing concentration among traditional lenders like banks. Empirical evidence supports this benefit, as the introduction of CDS trading for a firm correlates with decreased overall firm , measured via value , indicating effective offloading of credit exposure. This dispersion mechanism enhances market efficiency by broadening the pool of risk bearers, with studies showing that CDS usage allows non-bank entities to absorb portions of corporate that would otherwise remain bundled with lending activities. Further empirical validation comes from analyses of CDS market dynamics, where risk transfer via CDS has been linked to lower credit risk in cleared trades, achieved through multilateral netting that distributes net exposures across participants rather than bilateral concentrations. Post-2008 central clearing mandates amplified this dispersion, with data from cleared single-name CDS contracts revealing reduced bilateral exposures and improved efficiency, mitigating pre-crisis vulnerabilities from opaque risk holdings. These findings counterbalance concerns over amplification by demonstrating how CDS facilitate granular risk allocation, evidenced by the market's role in reallocating U.S. corporate away from depository institutions toward diversified investors. In terms of , CDS markets empirically lead other credit instruments in reflecting default probabilities, providing timelier signals of deteriorating creditworthiness. Norden and Weber (2004) found that CDS spreads anticipate spread changes and incorporate firm-specific information faster than cash markets, establishing CDS as the dominant forum for pricing. This leading role persists in empirical comparisons, with CDS exhibiting superior relative to yields, as spreads adjust more rapidly to macroeconomic and entity-specific shocks. Additional studies confirm CDS's informational efficiency, particularly for corporate and credits, where spreads predict downgrades and credit events ahead of or markets. For instance, pre-crisis data show leading markets in by 50-70% in information share metrics, enhancing overall market transparency and aiding investors in assessing true costs. Even post-regulatory reforms, indices maintain strong price leadership, underscoring the instrument's enduring value in aggregating dispersed market intelligence on systemic conditions.

Debates Over Naked CDS and Regulatory Interventions

Naked s (CDS), where the buyer does not hold the underlying reference obligation, have sparked debate over their role in exacerbating market volatility and systemic risks, particularly during sovereign debt crises. Critics argue that naked CDS enable speculative "side bets" that can amplify borrowing costs and precipitate self-fulfilling prophecies of default by signaling distress and encouraging further selling pressure on bonds. For instance, in the European sovereign debt crisis around 2010, elevated CDS spreads on Greek debt were blamed for tightening funding conditions, with models suggesting that such raises equilibrium interest rates and default probabilities even absent fundamental deterioration. Proponents of restrictions, including policymakers, contended that naked positions lack , akin to on unrelated parties' misfortunes, potentially incentivizing where speculators profit from engineered distress. Conversely, defenders maintain that naked CDS enhance , facilitate , and allow efficient risk dispersion without net exposure creation, as every CDS position has a . Empirical analyses indicate that CDS markets often lead bond markets in incorporating credit information, providing early warnings of underlying solvency issues rather than fabricating them; for example, pre-crisis CDS spreads on subprime-related entities anticipated defaults ahead of cash markets. Banning naked trades, they argue, distorts incentives, reduces hedging opportunities for diversified portfolios, and may impair overall , with theoretical models showing that such prohibitions lower prices and liquidity by curtailing speculative entry that stabilizes dealer intermediation. Studies post-EU interventions found no significant reduction in sovereign yields from bans, but evidence of diminished CDS-bond price linkages, suggesting curtailed informational efficiency. Regulatory responses crystallized in the 's Short Selling Regulation (EU No 236/2012), effective November 1, 2012, which imposed a permanent ban on uncovered referencing sovereign debt for EU-domiciled entities, aiming to curb perceived attacks on member states amid the eurozone turmoil. The rule prohibits purchasing sovereign without equivalent bond holdings (or hedged exposures), with exemptions for market-making and limited hedging, but allows suspensions if stability threats arise; non-EU firms trading sovereign remain unbound if not targeting EU counterparties. In contrast, the under Dodd-Frank Act (2010) mandated central clearing and margining for standardized but preserved naked trading, prioritizing transparency over outright restrictions, as regulators like the viewed bans as ineffective against global . Post-ban evaluations in revealed mixed outcomes: while intended to shield borrowing costs, the policy correlated with thinner sovereign liquidity and slower price adjustments to news, without empirically verifiable drops in bond spreads attributable to the restriction.

Specialized Variants

Loan Credit Default Swaps (LCDS)

Loan credit default swaps (LCDS) are credit derivatives designed to hedge or speculate on the of syndicated secured , rather than bonds or other instruments. In an LCDS contract, the protection buyer makes periodic premium payments to the protection seller in exchange for compensation upon a credit event, such as a , , or restructuring of the underlying borrower. These instruments emerged in the mid-2000s to address the growing syndicated market, particularly in leveraged , enabling loan originators and investors to transfer risk without selling the underlying . Mechanically, LCDS function similarly to standard credit default swaps (CDS) but with key adaptations for loan characteristics. The reference obligation is a specific syndicated secured loan, and deliverable obligations upon settlement are restricted to similar syndicated secured loans meeting predefined criteria, such as being governed by U.S. or English law and held by non-affiliated third parties. Credit events trigger settlement, often via physical delivery of the distressed loan in exchange for par value, though cash settlement through auctions is also available under ISDA's LCDS Auction Rules established in 2007. Premiums, or spreads, reflect the loan's secured status, typically pricing lower than equivalent CDS due to anticipated higher recovery rates—often modeled at 70-80% versus 40% for senior unsecured bonds—stemming from collateral enforcement priorities. Unlike standard CDS, which reference corporate bonds or broader obligations and allow delivery of various debt types, LCDS emphasize loan-specific features like covenants, amortization schedules, and seniority in the capital structure, reducing basis risk for loan holders. Contracts are standardized under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) framework, including the 2007 LCDS Protocol, which amended documentation to align with syndicated loan conventions such as fixed-rate coupons and par pricing at issuance. This protocol facilitated market adoption by resolving mismatches in timing and terms between loans and traditional CDS. LCDS gained traction post-2006 amid surging leveraged volumes, peaking during the pre-2008 boom, with indices like the LCDX—comprising 100 equally weighted single-name LCDS—providing benchmarks for trading and hedging baskets of loans. Usage has since stabilized in institutional markets, primarily among banks, hedge funds, and loan mutual funds for in the $1.2 trillion global sector as of 2023, though liquidity remains thinner than bond CDS due to the bilateral nature of loans and regulatory scrutiny on post-financial . Empirical data indicate LCDS spreads correlate closely with pricing but diverge during , underscoring their role in isolated transfer without broader systemic spillovers.

Sovereign Debt-Specific Adaptations

Credit events in sovereign CDS contracts, governed by ISDA definitions, exclude —applicable only to corporate entities—and instead encompass failure to pay, obligation default or acceleration, , and repudiation or moratorium. Restructuring for sovereigns typically follows the 1999 ISDA clause without maturity limits on deliverable obligations, unlike the modified in corporate CDS that caps lookback periods and maturity mismatches to prevent gaming. This broader definition accommodates sovereign debt workouts, which often involve negotiated haircuts or clauses, as seen in Greece's 2012 private sector involvement where ISDA confirmed a credit event only after retroactive CACs reduced bond principal by over 50%. Settlement procedures for sovereign CDS mirror corporate protocols post-2009 Big Bang reforms, favoring cash settlement via dealer-led auctions to determine final price and recovery rates, though physical delivery of eligible bonds remains an option. Sovereign auctions, administered by ISDA and firms like and Creditex, have settled events such as Argentina's 2001 default and Uruguay's 2003 moratorium, yielding recovery rates of 30-40% based on bid-ask spreads in deliverable bonds. Unlike corporates, where physical settlement historically dominated (73% in 2005), CDS shifted to cash for European names by 2012 to mitigate delivery disputes amid fragmented bond markets. Deliverable obligations in sovereign CDS are non-subordinated claims for borrowed money, typically pari passu with the reference debt, denominated in major like USD (61% of contracts), EUR, or JPY, without the subordination filters common in corporate deals. This allows delivery of a wider basket of bonds, often external issuances, enhancing but exposing payouts to devaluation risks absent in domestic corporate references. contracts also standardize lower coupons (25 or 100 basis points) compared to corporate variability, reflecting thinner and higher speculative volumes from funds (83% dealer-driven in H2 2011).

Fiscal and Legal Considerations

Taxation of Premiums and Payouts

In the , default swaps () are generally classified as notional principal contracts (NPCs) under Treasury Regulation §1.446-3 for federal purposes, encompassing both cash-settled and physically settled variants. This treatment aligns CDS with other swaps, subjecting periodic premium payments to accrual-based recognition rather than or option characterizations, despite early uncertainties noted in IRS Notice 2004-52. Premiums paid by the protection buyer are deductible as expenses, typically accrued ratably over the contract term on an accrual-method basis, qualifying as expenses if used for or hedging or as expenses otherwise. For the protection seller, received premiums constitute , similarly accrued and included in periodically. Upon a triggering , payouts under cash-settled are treated as termination payments under NPC rules, resulting in ordinary income to the protection buyer and an ordinary (or ) for the protection seller in the year the is determined. This characterization applies regardless of whether the CDS hedges an actual position, potentially creating mismatches with capital es on underlying reference obligations. Physically settled CDS, where the buyer delivers defaulted obligations in exchange for , may involve sale-or-exchange for the delivered assets, yielding capital or to the buyer based on the difference between the obligations' basis and par , while the seller acquires the obligations with a basis equal to the par made. However, proposed regulations extend NPC to physical elements, prioritizing ordinary for the swap legs to avoid outcomes. Cross-border CDS premiums paid by U.S. persons to non-U.S. sellers generally escape withholding tax under portfolio interest exceptions or as non-FDAP income, per guidance in proposed regulations, though insurance excise taxes have been considered but not imposed on premiums. In other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, premiums are typically taxed as trading income for dealers or investment income for investors, with payouts as capital or revenue receipts depending on hedging status, while EU member states often apply derivative rules under local tax codes without uniform withholding on premiums. These treatments reflect CDS as financial contracts rather than insurance, avoiding risk transfer doctrines due to permissible "naked" positions without insurable interest.

Accounting Standards for On- and Off-Balance-Sheet Treatment

Under US GAAP, are classified as under ASC 815 and must be recognized on the balance sheet at upon inception and subsequently remeasured, with changes in recorded in unless the instrument qualifies for . This on-balance-sheet treatment, introduced by FAS 133 in 1998 and effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2000, replaced prior practices where many , including early , were often kept to avoid immediate recognition of potential losses. For not designated as hedges, the full mark-to-market volatility flows through the , potentially amplifying reported volatility during credit stress events. Under IFRS, CDS fall within the scope of (effective January 1, 2018, superseding IAS 39), requiring measurement at through profit or loss (FVTPL) for those held for trading or not qualifying for other categories, with the asset or liability recorded on sheet. Similar to US GAAP, historical treatment under pre-IAS 39 rules allowed accounting for certain swaps, contributing to underreported in the 1990s and early 2000s; IAS 39's 2005 adoption mandated recognition for most , aligning with post-Enron reforms. under permits deferral of changes to other if the CDS effectively hedges exposure, though strict documentation and effectiveness testing are required, and credit risk hedges remain challenging due to basis mismatches between hedged items (often at amortized cost) and the CDS (at FVTPL). Notional amounts of CDS contracts, representing the underlying credit exposure, are not recorded on the under either framework but are disclosed in footnotes as contingent items to inform users of potential future obligations or receivables upon credit events. This disclosure practice persists from earlier regulatory guidance, such as 1996 OCC bulletins treating as for , though full accounting now ensures the economic substance of the is reflected on-balance-sheet. Differences between US GAAP and IFRS arise in offsetting: US GAAP permits netting of derivative assets and liabilities with the same if master netting agreements exist and intent to settle net is documented, while IFRS requires settlement intent in addition to legal right of offset, often resulting in grosser presentation under IFRS. These standards enhance transparency but have been critiqued for procyclical effects, as mark-to-market losses during market downturns can force , as observed in CDS positions amid the 2008 crisis.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] ISDA Disclosure Annex for Credit Derivative Transactions
    Sep 4, 2012 · Under a credit default swap, one party agrees, in exchange for an upfront payment and/or series of periodic payments, to compensate the other ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swaps - Federal Reserve Board
    May 6, 2022 · Abstract: Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most common type of credit derivative. This paper provides a brief history of the CDS market and ...
  3. [3]
    An update of Credit Default Swaps - Seven Pillars Institute
    Apr 14, 2015 · The credit default swap was invented by a J.P. Morgan team in 1994. The principle that governed the use of the transaction was an extension of ...
  4. [4]
    OTC derivatives statistics at end-December 2023
    May 16, 2024 · The notional value of CDS dropped by 14% in the second half of 2023, from $9.9 trillion to $8.5 trillion (Graph 4.A, blue line). The driving ...
  5. [5]
    Credit Default Swaps and the Credit Crisis
    Many observers have argued that credit default swaps contributed significantly to the credit crisis. Of particular concern to these observers are that credit ...
  6. [6]
    Credit Default Swaps | CFA Institute
    A credit default swap (CDS) is a contract between two parties in which one party purchases protection from another party against losses from the default of a ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] The Credit Default Swap Market - IOSCO
    With specific regards to CDS contracts, ISDA defined a format for trade confirmation (Master Confirmation. Agreement on Credit Default Swaps) and a standardized ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swap –Pricing Theory, Real Data Analysis and ...
    The notional value of a CDS refers to the face value of the underlying security. When looking at the premium that is paid by the buyer of the CDS to the seller, ...
  9. [9]
    Credit Default Swap: What It Is and How It Works - Investopedia
    In the first quarter of 2025, the estimated size of the U.S. CDS market was nearly $4.2 trillion, making up 82% of the credit derivatives market.4. How ...What Is a Credit Default Swap? · CDS and Credit Events · Terms of a CDS
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Contractual terms and CDS pricing - Bank for International Settlements
    While restructuring agreements still counted as credit events, the clause limited the deliverable obligations to those with a maturity of. 30 months or less ...
  11. [11]
    2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
    The 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (the “Definitions”) provide the basic framework for the documentation of certain credit derivative transactions.
  12. [12]
    New ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions
    Aug 24, 2014 · One of the main objectives is to avoid a situation where senior CDS contracts are triggered by a credit event affecting only subordinated debt.
  13. [13]
    Credit Default Swaps: What Happens in a Credit Event? - Investopedia
    In the CDS world, a credit event is a trigger that causes the buyer of protection to terminate and settle the contract. Credit events are agreed upon when the ...Single-Name Credit Default... · Credit Default Auctions<|separator|>
  14. [14]
    [PDF] The Aftermath of the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
    Sep 20, 2016 · Using the Chapter 11 filing as a. Bankruptcy Credit Event trigger can have the benefit of removing CDS holders from the equation when a vote is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  15. [15]
    ISDA 2014 Derivatives Definitions Protocol - Rimon Law
    Sep 4, 2014 · The 2014 Definitions incorporate a new Credit Event to clarify when and if government “bail-outs” of non-U.S. financial Reference Entities, and ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] CDS Auctions: An Overview - Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
    We define a CDS's underlying assets as the assets (usually bonds or loans) that trigger a CDS payout if a credit event occurs with respect to them. In the ...
  17. [17]
    Are Credit Default Swaps 'Insurance'? - MyNewMarkets.com
    Nov 3, 2008 · Credit default swaps are not considered insurance because they protect against speculative losses and do not require insurable interest.
  18. [18]
    Credit Default Swaps, Guarantees and Insurance Policies
    This article examines the issue of how credit default swaps, guarantees and insurance policies are used to achieve similar aims in respect of credit protection.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swaps: A Brief Insurance Primer - Anderson Kill
    Another key difference between a CDS and an insurance policy is that the seller of a CDS is not currently subject to regulatory capital require- ments. Some ...
  20. [20]
    Credit Derivatives Are Not 'Insurance'
    Oct 17, 2009 · The instinct to call credit derivatives “insurance” is sensible enough – the lender buying credit protection looks much like an insured and the ...
  21. [21]
    Credit Default Swaps and Regulatory Reform | Mercatus Center
    Aug 12, 2009 · A credit default swap (CDS) is a type of non-exchange-traded derivatives contract that obligates a protection buyer to pay a fee to a protection seller.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swaps – Insurance or Not? - Casualty Actuarial Society
    Oct 4, 2010 · – Credit Default Insurers cannot post collateral; – Insurance is not transferable; and – Obligations are not subject to acceleration upon a ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Credit default swaps, guarantees and insurance policies
    Dec 1, 2010 · Credit default swaps ('CDS'), guarantees and insurance policies are used regularly by financial institutions seeking to protect themselves from.
  24. [24]
    What is the difference between a credit guarantee and a ... - Quora
    May 26, 2020 · There are other differences such as the capital ratios and accounting treatment of a loan with a credit guarantee versus a Credit Default Swap. ...
  25. [25]
    credit default swap (CDS) - IRMI
    In contrast, the buyer of a credit default swap need not be the owner of the financial instrument for which the swap is providing a financial guarantee.
  26. [26]
    Regulating Derivatives: A Fundamental Rethinking
    Feb 11, 2020 · There currently is no legal requirement, however, that a party guaranteed by a CDS contract have an “insurable interest” in the underlying ...Missing: differences | Show results with:differences
  27. [27]
    FRB: A Look Under the Hood: How Banks Use Credit Default Swaps
    Dec 22, 2016 · The propensity to issue unsecured loans is consistent with the notion that banks hedge unsecured credit risk through the CDS market.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Credit Derivatives
    This practice note focuses on credit default swaps (CDS) (both single-name and index) and provides a high-level overview of their functioning, with a ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swaps and Their Market Function
    Buying a credit default swap is much more efficient since it eliminates the desired amount of credit risk specifically, without also creating new risks to hedge ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Single-name Credit Default Swaps: A Review of the Empirical ...
    Sep 19, 2016 · These challenges have involved both the definition of a restructuring credit event (mainly an issue for sovereign reference entities) and ...
  31. [31]
    Single-name Credit Default Swaps: Review of Empirical Academic ...
    Sep 12, 2016 · Single-name credit default swaps (“CDSs”) are derivatives based on the credit risk of a single borrower such as a corporation or sovereign.
  32. [32]
    Credit default swaps: Useful, misleading, dangerous? - CEPR
    Apr 30, 2012 · A naked CDS offers a way to speculate on the financial health of a corporate or sovereign without risking capital, as short-selling would do.
  33. [33]
    Credit Default Swap (CDS) | Practical Law - Westlaw
    A CDS is a credit derivative where a buyer purchases protection from a seller on a reference entity's credit exposure, paying a fee. If a credit ...Missing: enabling | Show results with:enabling
  34. [34]
    The credit default swap market: what a difference a decade makes
    Jun 5, 2018 · After its inception in the early 1990s, the credit default swap (CDS) market saw a steady increase in volumes, followed by a rapid surge in ...
  35. [35]
    Information efficiency of the U.S. credit default swap market
    The CDS market started to grow in the late 1990s, more than doubled in size each year, and, by the end of 2007, the CDS market had a notional value of $62.2 ...
  36. [36]
    Economic consequences of speculative side bets: The case ... - CEPR
    Sep 4, 2010 · The role of naked credit default swaps in the global crisis is an ongoing source of controversy. This column seeks to add some formal ...
  37. [37]
    Regulation and the demand for credit default swaps in experimental ...
    Regulation increases CDS use for hedging, reduces speculation, and doesn't negatively affect bond or CDS prices. CDS are used for hedging and speculation.Missing: creditworthiness | Show results with:creditworthiness
  38. [38]
    https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2018/EPR_2018_trends-in-credit-basis-spreads_boyarchenko.pdf
  39. [39]
    Uses of CDS - CFA, FRM, and Actuarial Exams Study Notes
    Sep 29, 2021 · A CDS basis is the difference between a bond's credit spread and CDS spread. It arises from different opinions, relative market liquidity, model ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] The CDS-Bond Basis During the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009
    At first sight, a large negative basis smacks of arbitrage since it suggests that an investor can purchase the bond, fund it at libor swap, and insure the ...
  41. [41]
    Outsmarted | The New Yorker
    May 25, 2009 · In late 1994, Blythe Masters, a member of the J. P. Morgan swaps team, pitched the idea of selling the credit risk to the European Bank of ...
  42. [42]
    A short history of credit default swaps - The Telegraph
    Sep 6, 2011 · In the early 1990s staff at Bankers Trust, later bought by Deutsche Bank, and JP Morgan developed the first credit default swaps as a way ...Missing: invention date
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Decoding the Mystery of Credit Default Swaps
    Credit default swaps (CDSs) are a form of credit default insurance, but are often classified as unregulated financial derivatives, and are not structurally  ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] OTC derivatives market activity in the second half of 2005
    Notional amounts outstanding of credit default swaps (CDSs) rose by one third during the second half of. 2005 to $13.7 trillion (Table 4), after a 60% increase ...
  45. [45]
    Credit Derivatives and Risk Management - Federal Reserve Board
    May 22, 2007 · The striking growth of credit derivatives suggests that market participants find them to be useful tools for risk management.
  46. [46]
    [PDF] OTC derivatives market activity in the second half of 2004
    Notional amounts outstanding increased particularly for currency swaps, up by 16.8%, while for outright forwards and forex swaps it was equal to the average for ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Origins of the Crisis - FDIC
    Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) played integral roles in spreading and amplifying the risk of the mortgage market.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] AIG in Hindsight; - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
    Oct 22, 2014 · AIG's Credit Default Swaps. As of December 31, 2007, AIG had written credit default swaps with a notional value of $527 billion. These swaps ...
  49. [49]
    Actions Related to AIG - FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
    Â On September 15, 2008, downgrades by certain credit rating agencies triggered CDS-related collateral calls that the company could not meet. In light of the ...
  50. [50]
    Lehman CDS sellers lose $365 bln after auction - Reuters
    Oct 10, 2008 · The settlement of Lehman's credit default swaps is one of the largest in the $55 trillion market to date, with around $400 billion in contract ...
  51. [51]
    Lehman Brothers' credit default swap settlement completed - Lexology
    Oct 23, 2008 · The CDS settlement resulted in approximately $5.2 billion in net funds transfers from net sellers of credit default protection to net buyers of credit default ...Missing: payout | Show results with:payout
  52. [52]
    The Use (and Abuse) of CDS Spreads During Distress in
    Mar 1, 2009 · Credit Default Swap spreads have been used as a leading indicator of distress. Default probabilities can be extracted from CDS spreads, but ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    [PDF] International swaps market reform Promoting transparency and ...
    In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, the G20 leaders agreed that it was time to bring transparency and oversight to the opaque swaps market.
  54. [54]
    Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Title VII)
    Oct 14, 2025 · 28 November 2012: the CFTC published the final clearing rules for certain types of swaps (credit default swaps and interest rate swaps);. 31 ...
  55. [55]
    Dodd-Frank Act: What It Does, Major Components, and Criticisms
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was intended to prevent another financial crisis like the one in 2007–2008. Components of the Dodd ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Credit default swaps after the global banking crisis: Regulatory ...
    The recent ISDA initiatives should strengthen the infrastructure of the CDS market and enhance the liquidity and transparency of the market of standardised. CDS ...
  57. [57]
    Remarks of Chairman Timothy Massad before the ISDA 30th Annual ...
    Apr 23, 2015 · The percentage of cleared transactions in our markets has increased dramatically – from around 15 percent in December 2007 to approximately 75 ...
  58. [58]
    Transparency in CDS
    Mar 30, 2023 · Likewise, clearing is much more prevalent than it was in 2008. According to ISDA SwapsInfo, which uses data from the DTCC swap data repository ( ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] The Long and Short of It: The Post-Crisis Corporate CDS Market
    Jun 3, 2020 · Regulatory changes altered the structure of the credit default swap (CDS) market following the 2007-09 financial crisis, with regulatory-imposed.
  60. [60]
    Do Credit Default Swaps Still Lead? The Effects of Regulation on ...
    Jul 17, 2024 · This paper studies how regulation implemented after the Global Financial Crisis has impacted price discovery in the credit default swap (CDS) market.Missing: 2008 credible
  61. [61]
    Enduring Legacy of the Dodd-Frank Act's Derivatives Reforms
    Oct 2, 2020 · During the financial crisis, market participants in the non-cleared, OTC swaps markets often knew little about credit risk of their trading ...
  62. [62]
    CDS spreads and COVID-19 pandemic - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
    The COVID-19 pandemic can transmit its effect onto the CDS market through its impact on firms' future cash flows and discount rate channels.
  63. [63]
    2020 saw highest credit default events since 2009 - S&P Global
    In times of crisis the credit default swap market springs to life. We saw this in the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009, the eurozone debt crisis of 2010 ...
  64. [64]
    The CDS Market Stayed Healthy amid COVID - MSCI
    Nov 23, 2020 · Things changed in late February when COVID-19's spread began to significantly impact the market. During the worst days of March, the quoted ...
  65. [65]
    Emerging Markets Sovereign CDS Spreads During COVID-19
    The evidence suggests that the epidemiological deterioration can lower confidence in the sovereign credit markets due to the prospects of prolonged lockdowns ...<|separator|>
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Do Credit Default Swaps Still Lead? The Effects of Regulation on ...
    Jul 17, 2024 · Illiquidity or credit deterioration: ... The Relationship between Credit Default Swap. Spreads, Bond Yields, and Credit Rating Announcements.
  67. [67]
    Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and ...
    Jun 16, 2020 · FINRA Rule 4240 implements an interim pilot program with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in credit default swaps that ...
  68. [68]
    CDS 5Y Ukraine - Cbonds
    The CDS 5Y Ukraine was 10,951.35 bps on 28/09/2022. A CDS is a credit derivative where investors transfer credit risk.<|control11|><|separator|>
  69. [69]
    [PDF] impacts of the russian invasion of ukraine on financial market ...
    Notably, Russian sovereign CDS has surged due to rising investor concerns about the impact of sanctions, and the consequences of the conflict on economic ...
  70. [70]
    Stability and risk contagion in the global sovereign CDS market ...
    Within the first week of the conflict (from February 24, 2022, to March 4, 2022, Russia's sovereign CDS (SCDS) increased by 412.58%, Ukraine's by 266.88%, and ...
  71. [71]
    Credit Derivatives Trading Activity Reported in EU, UK and US Markets
    Sep 16, 2025 · European credit default swap (CDS) traded notional rose by 55.4% to $2.5 trillion in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $1.6 trillion in the ...
  72. [72]
    Credit default swaps are in demand again amid U.S. fiscal worries
    May 28, 2025 · Spreads or premiums on US 1-year credit default swaps were up at 52 basis points as of Wednesday from 16 basis points at the start of this year.Missing: developments | Show results with:developments
  73. [73]
    A junk-rated US Treasury? Markets 'care' about that - Reuters
    May 20, 2025 · It turns out, investors really do 'care'. Using credit default swaps pricing as an input, S&P Global's Capital IQ model puts the U.S. sovereign ...<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    Do credit default swaps (CDS) continue to serve as hedging ...
    This study systematically reviews 103 empirical papers on credit default swaps (CDS), published through March 2025, to analyze their effectiveness as ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] CDS Indices Primer
    The definitions of what constitutes a credit event in a CDS and whether the. CDS is cash or physically settled (including what physical bond can be delivered) ...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] The Pricing and Risk Management of Credit Default Swaps, with a ...
    Oct 3, 2013 · The ISDA standard model uses the Libor curve for discounting, with a tenor (i.e. 3M, 6M etc) that is currency specific. The ISDA model uses a ...
  77. [77]
    [PDF] Taxation of Credit Derivatives - Urban Institute
    A credit default swap's tenor is often different from that of the reference obligation, but a swap term cannot be longer than the term of that obligation. Most ...
  78. [78]
    Understanding the ISDA Master Agreement for OTC Derivatives
    An ISDA master agreement is a standard document regularly used to govern over-the-counter derivatives transactions. Published by the International Swaps and ...
  79. [79]
    ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions Protocol
    The 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions Protocol amends certain credit derivative transactions to incorporate the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions.
  80. [80]
    ISDA 2002 Master Agreement - SEC.gov
    This 2002 Master Agreement, which includes the schedule (the “Schedule”), and the documents and other confirming evidence (each a “Confirmation”) exchanged ...
  81. [81]
    2002 ISDA Master Agreement | Financial regulation
    Jan 20, 2021 · This contract governs all over-the-counter “OTC” derivatives transactions, cleared or uncleared, entered into between counterparties.<|control11|><|separator|>
  82. [82]
    2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
    Jun 30, 2014 · The 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions are an updated and revised version of the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions.
  83. [83]
    [PDF] The New 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
    Sep 8, 2014 · The new 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions are slated to become effective on September 22, 2014. UPDATE: Please note that since ...<|separator|>
  84. [84]
    ISDA® Credit Derivatives Transaction Confirmation (Annotated by ...
    This Standard Document may be used to document a credit derivatives transaction, such as a credit default swap (CDS), under the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives ...
  85. [85]
    https://www.cdsmodel.com/documentation.html
  86. [86]
    [PDF] The ISDA Master Agreement – Part II: Negotiated Provisions
    A typical negotiation will be initiated by one party sending the other its standard form of ISDA Master Agreement, which will consist of a. Schedule to a pre- ...Missing: customization | Show results with:customization
  87. [87]
    [DOC] Draft FAQ's on Credit Default Swap - FIMMDA
    It is a Financial Swap Agreement. It is a credit derivative contract where the purchaser of the swap makes payments up until the maturity date of a contract.
  88. [88]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swaps
    A credit default swap (CDS) is a kind of insurance against credit risk. – Privately negotiated bilateral contract. – Reference Obligation, Notional, Premium.
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Credit Swap Valuation - Darrell Duffie
    Model- based pricing may be useful because it adds disci- pline to the measurement and use of default prob- abilities and recoveries. For additional modeling of.<|control11|><|separator|>
  90. [90]
    [PDF] An Empirical Analysis of Counterparty Risk in CDS Prices
    The default is driven by unpredictable Poisson events with certain default rate (default intensity). Reduced form models calibrate defaults directly from market ...
  91. [91]
    [PDF] Valuing Credit Default Swaps I: No Counterparty Default Risk
    This paper provides a methodology for valuing credit default swaps when the payoff is contingent on default by a single reference entity and there is no ...
  92. [92]
    Jarrow Turnbull Model: What It Is, How It Works - Investopedia
    The Jarrow Turnbull model is a reduced-form credit risk pricing method, utilizing dynamic analysis of interest rates to calculate default probability.
  93. [93]
    [PDF] a simple unified model for pricing derivative securities with equity ...
    Abstract. We develop a model for pricing derivative and hybrid securities whose value may depend on different sources of risk, namely, equity, interest-rate ...
  94. [94]
    [PDF] Arbitrage costs and the persistent non-zero CDS-bond basis
    The theoretical no-arbitrage condition between credit default swaps (CDS) and credit-risky bonds based on Duffie (1999) is a cornerstone for empirical research ...
  95. [95]
    [PDF] CDS Sensitivities
    CDS spread and recovery rate. The difference between the current MV and a calculated MV by shifting the recovery up by 1%. Risky PV01. DEFAULT-to-ZERO JUMP-to- ...Missing: greeks | Show results with:greeks
  96. [96]
    [PDF] ISDA Legal Guidelines for Smart Derivatives Contracts: Credit ...
    Jul 28, 2020 · The simplest form of market standard credit derivative is a single name CDS. Its cash flows and key events are summarized below. Credit ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] The ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees
    Before the establishment of the DCs in 2009, the CDS markets managed Credit Event settlement using physical settlement, cash settlement and eventually voluntary ...<|separator|>
  98. [98]
    [PDF] Credit Event Process
    RAST is a credit default swap, but on terms such that it takes effect as a bond sale and purchase of cheapest to deliver Deliverable Obligations, at Final ...
  99. [99]
    [PDF] ISDA® - International Swaps and Derivatives Association
    Nov 9, 2012 · Under this combined settlement mechanism, physical settlement typically is at a market value determined by a dealer poll following delivery ...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
  100. [100]
    The delivery option in credit default swaps - ScienceDirect.com
    Duffie (1999) shows that it is only under highly restrictive and simplifying assumptions that the intuitive equality holds between the premium on a CDS and the ...<|separator|>
  101. [101]
    [PDF] Credit Default Swap Auctions - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    Credit default swap (CDS) auctions are used to settle contracts when default occurs, replacing physical bond transfers, and establish a market price for ...
  102. [102]
    A Plain English Summary of Credit Default Swap Settlement Protocol
    Credit default swaps under which a Credit Event has occurred are settled in one of two ways: by physical settlement (i.e., the exchange of debt obligations for ...
  103. [103]
    [PDF] Liquidity and Credit Default Swap Spreads - Bank of Canada
    The notional amount traded in global credit derivatives markets has increased from $180 billion in 1997 to $34.4 trillion in 2006.5. Most credit derivatives are ...
  104. [104]
    Testimony Concerning Credit Default Swaps - SEC.gov
    Oct 15, 2008 · As of the end of the first half of 2008, the total notional value of CDSs is estimated to be approximately $55 trillion, according to the ...
  105. [105]
    Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) Overview
    Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), passed in 2000, provided broad regulatory exemptions for over-the-counter derivatives.
  106. [106]
    The CFTC's Role in Financial Stability from Deregulation to Reform ...
    Jul 21, 2025 · The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, or CFMA, eliminated the CFTC's ability to regulate OTC derivatives by explicitly exempting ...
  107. [107]
    Credit Default Swap Regulation Overview
    Dec 1, 2008 · Furthermore, the CFMA provides that CDS are "swap agreements" that do not constitute "securities" for purposes of the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act.
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Financial Market Destabilization and the Role of Credit Default Swaps
    All of the regulatory oversight options in the United States to date assume sophisticated market players, and thus limited oversight requirements. This view ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] GAO-09-397T Systemic Risk: Regulatory Oversight and Recent ...
    Mar 5, 2009 · Credit default swaps are one of the products that have assumed a key role in financial markets. They are being used by financial institutions ...
  110. [110]
    Fixing the Regulatory Framework for Derivatives
    Sep 14, 2016 · Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, derivatives were not regulated as a unique product. Instead, most derivatives—including credit default swaps ...
  111. [111]
    Derivatives and the Legal Origin of the 2008 Credit Crisis
    This Article argues that dubious honor belongs, first and foremost, to a little-known statute called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA).
  112. [112]
    [PDF] Based Swaps Under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act - K&L Gates
    The credit default swaps at issue involve untranched broad-based index credit default swaps that clear on Markit's North American and European corporate indices ...
  113. [113]
    CFTC Announces that Mandatory Clearing Begins Today
    Mar 11, 2013 · The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the Commission to determine whether a swap is required to be cleared by either a Commission-initiated review or ...
  114. [114]
    [PDF] The Dodd-Frank Act: Five Years On
    Jul 1, 2015 · The CFTC's first clearing mandates came into force in 2013. Approximately three quarters of interest rate derivatives and credit default swap ( ...
  115. [115]
    Clearing obligation and risk mitigation techniques under EMIR
    EMIR includes the obligation to centrally clear certain classes of over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts through Central Counterparty Clearing (CCPs).
  116. [116]
    EMIR Clearing Obligation for Certain Credit Derivatives Published ...
    The classes of credit default swap (CDS) OTC derivatives that shall be subject to the EMIR clearing obligation. · The four different categories of counterparty ...<|separator|>
  117. [117]
    [PDF] Margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives
    Initial margin should be exchanged by both parties, without netting of amounts collected by each party. (ie on a gross basis), and held in such a way as to ...
  118. [118]
    [PDF] Margin Requirements for Non-cleared Derivatives
    The new framework, described in (BCBS-IOSCO, 2015), mandates the use of VM and IM for all non-cleared OTC derivatives. In addition to daily posting of VM, both ...
  119. [119]
    Initial margin for non-cleared derivatives: the end of the journey?
    Apr 5, 2024 · From 1 September 2016 until September 2022, the initial margin rules for non–cleared derivative transactions have been phased-in and an ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)
    The regulation imposes the clearing obligation on interest rate swaps and basis swaps in dollars, euro, pounds sterling and yen, forward rate agreements and ...<|separator|>
  121. [121]
    [PDF] Central clearing: trends and current issues
    This special feature discusses the evolution of central clearing since the. Great Financial Crisis of 2007–09 and explores possible implications for systemic.
  122. [122]
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3560957
  123. [123]
    The impact of central clearing on the market for single-name credit ...
    Central clearing results in a small increase in CDS spreads, no improvement in liquidity, and no deterioration in default risk. The increase is due to reduced  ...
  124. [124]
    [PDF] The impact of trade reporting and central clearing on CDS price ...
    These results suggest the CDS market has become less of a “hidden” trading venue for informed investors since central clearing and trade reporting started ...
  125. [125]
    Margin requirements and systemic liquidity risk - ScienceDirect.com
    The model shows that central clearing might increase systemic liquidity risk. •. The model shows that Interconnectedness amplifies the effects of systemic risk.
  126. [126]
    https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2020/EPR_2020_vol26no3.pdf
  127. [127]
    The impact of central clearing on counterparty risk, liquidity, and ...
    This paper examines the impact of central clearing on the credit default swap (CDS) market using a sample of voluntarily cleared single-name contracts.
  128. [128]
    Credit-Default Swaps Market Shrinks 50% From '07 Peak, BIS Says
    Dec 12, 2010 · Transactions due in less than a year now account for about 10 percent of outstanding positions, up from about 5 percent in 2007. In the same ...
  129. [129]
    [PDF] key trends in the size and composition of otc derivatives markets in ...
    Dec 1, 2024 · According to the BIS data, CDS notional outstanding (including single- and multiple-name CDS) fell by 9.0% to $9.0 trillion at mid-year 2024 ...
  130. [130]
    OTC derivatives statistics at end-June 2021
    Nov 15, 2021 · Central clearing rates of credit default swaps (CDS) continued to rise in H1 2021, reaching 64%. The rise was most notable for short- and medium ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  131. [131]
    [PDF] Single-name CDS Market Update
    May 1, 2023 · While single-name CDS market liquidity overall continues to decline, and all but a handful of reference entities are illiquid,.
  132. [132]
    CDS Pricing Data | S&P Global
    Access the market's most extensive source of Credit Default Swaps data. Support your price discovery, risk management, compliance, research and valuations ...
  133. [133]
    [PDF] CDS Pricing Data - S&P Global
    Our CDS pricing service is driven by 4M+ daily data points from 20+ market makers in the form of official books of record, live quotes and clearing submissions.
  134. [134]
    Credit - ICE
    Our comprehensive CDS pricing solution enables market participants to integrate up-to-date market data into their analytics and workflows to help improve ...
  135. [135]
    Credit Default Swaps - Tradeweb Markets
    Tradeweb provides real-time pricing, axes and market liquidity from leading dealers for Single Name CDS and CDS Indices, including emerging markets.
  136. [136]
    Credit Default Swap (CDS) Indices - S&P Global
    Get access to our award-winning CDX and iTraxx index families, comprised of North American, European, Asian, and emerging markets tradable credit default swap ...
  137. [137]
    Settlement Prices (ICE Clear Credit)
    ICE makes its daily settlement prices on indices and 5 year single name CDS available free to the public on this website. For access to the full set of Markit ...Missing: Bloomberg | Show results with:Bloomberg
  138. [138]
    [PDF] When Is There a Strong Transfer Risk from the Sovereigns to the ...
    The liquidity in the government bond market is typically much higher than the liquidity in corporate bond market. The credit default swap market, however, ...
  139. [139]
    [PDF] Sovereign credit default swaps - Bank for International Settlements
    The market for credit derivatives, or financial contracts whose payoffs are linked to changes in the credit quality of a reference asset, has expanded.
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Analyzing Trends in Single-name CDS and Index CDS Market Activity
    Nov 1, 2024 · Based on Bank for International Settlements (BIS) data, roughly half of global CDS notional outstanding was cleared by the end of 20232. In the ...
  141. [141]
    What Does the CDS Market Imply for a U.S. Default?
    Accordingly, we estimate an increase in the risk-adjusted default probability from about 0.3–0.4% in 2022 to approximately 4% in April 2023. Such an estimate is ...
  142. [142]
    [PDF] Functions and characteristics of corporate and sovereign CDS
    We focus particularly on the differences between corporate and sovereign CDS and provide insights into the respective structure of market participants, means of ...
  143. [143]
    [PDF] Sovereign Debt and Credit Default Swaps
    Nov 29, 2023 · Because of the tight no arbitrage relationships between bonds and CDS, there are a number of conditions under which either the CDS, bond, or ...
  144. [144]
    [PDF] Secured Credit Facility Authorized for AIG on September 16, 2008
    Sep 16, 2008 · For example, as of June 30, 2008, AIGFP had sold credit default swaps (CDS) with a gross notional exposure of $441 billion on super-senior.
  145. [145]
    (PDF) The Impact of Financial Innovations on the Amplification of ...
    This paper examines how specific financial innovations, particularly derivatives like MBS and CDS, contributed to the amplification of the 2007-2008 financial ...
  146. [146]
    [PDF] Credit-Default-Swaps and the 2008 Financial Crisis - AMS Dottorato
    Feb 25, 2015 · After the 2008 financial crisis, the financial innovation product Credit-Default-Swap. (CDS) was widely blamed as the main cause of this ...<|separator|>
  147. [147]
    Credit default swaps and firm risk - Lin - 2023 - Wiley Online Library
    Jul 17, 2023 · This study investigates how initiating a credit default swap (CDS) affects firm risk. Using the firm value volatility as a measure of firm risk, we document ...
  148. [148]
    [PDF] Credit Market Choice - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    This paper is the first to investigate the choice of an institution to allocate credit risk in individual U. S. corporate reference entities through CDS and ...
  149. [149]
    The collateral rule: Evidence from the credit default swap market
    In this paper, we explore a novel dataset of daily credit default swap (CDS) positions cleared by the largest CDS clearinghouse along with posted margins.Missing: dispersion | Show results with:dispersion
  150. [150]
    [PDF] AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP ...
    The paper shows that the CDS market is the main forum for credit risk price discovery and that CDS prices are better integrated with firm-specific variables in ...
  151. [151]
    [PDF] An empirical comparison of credit spreads between the bond market ...
    No-arbitrage conditions suggest that this CDS can be replicated synthetically by shorting a par fixed coupon bond on the same reference entity with the same ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  152. [152]
    Price discovery in euro area sovereign credit markets and the ban ...
    On 15 November 2012 the European Parliament adopted a regulation against entering into so-called 'naked' or uncovered short sales on sovereign debt through CDS ...
  153. [153]
    In Defense of Naked Credit Default Swaps - Sites@Duke Express
    Jun 18, 2020 · The uncovered (“naked”) CDS, which does not require buyers to have insurable interests, was castigated for fueling excessive speculation and ...
  154. [154]
    Parliament seals ban on sovereign debt speculation and short ...
    Nov 15, 2011 · Parliament obtained a ban on naked CDS trading (purchasing default insurance contracts without owning the related bonds). Purchasing Italian CDS ...
  155. [155]
    The European ban on naked sovereign credit default swaps - CEPR
    Jul 23, 2012 · A new regulation on short selling and naked CDSs will come into effect across the EU in November 2012. Investors willing to trade sovereign CDSs ...
  156. [156]
    The EU Ban on Uncovered Sovereign Credit Default Swaps
    Suppression of undesirable price moves was extended to the realm of sovereign debt in November 2012, when the European Union prohibited “naked” purchases of ...
  157. [157]
    Loan Credit Default Swap (Lcds): What It Is, How It Works
    A loan credit default swap (LCDS) is a type of credit derivative in which the credit exposure of an underlying loan is exchanged between two parties.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  158. [158]
    Pricing Loan Credit-Default Swaps - GlobalCapital
    Jul 20, 2007 · The first is the underlying reference obligation of an LCDS is a secured loan while the underlying reference obligation of a CDS is an unsecured ...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics<|separator|>
  159. [159]
    Bullet Syndicated Secured Loan Credit Default Swap Standard ...
    This template is designed to document credit default swap transactions where the Deliverable Obligations are limited to Syndicated Secured Loans of the ...
  160. [160]
    Loan Credit Default Swap (Lcds): What It Is, How It Works - AInvest
    Aug 28, 2025 · Key Differences with CDS: Unlike CDS, which can involve various types of debt instruments, LCDS focuses solely on syndicated secured loans. This ...
  161. [161]
    2007 LCDS Protocol
    ... Credit Default Swap Physical Settlement Rider published by The Loan Syndications and Trading Association, Inc. as of June 18, 2007. The Protocol will apply ...
  162. [162]
    LCDS (Loan Credit Default Swap) - London Forfaiting
    A LCDS is a credit default swap where the Reference Obligation and only Deliverable Obligation is a specific loan rather than any other assets.
  163. [163]
    [PDF] MARKET SEGMENTATION AND DEFAULT RISK: THE CDS AND ...
    CDS MARKETS. 1. INTRODUCTION. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and Loan CDS (LCDS) contracts are essentially financial agreements between protection buyers and ...
  164. [164]
    CDS on US Sovereign Debt Q&A
    Jul 27, 2011 · A CDS is triggered when a Credit Event occurs. There are three Credit Events that are typically used for Sovereigns such as the United States.
  165. [165]
    Sovereign CDS Q&A - Bond Vigilantes
    Feb 25, 2010 · There are three credit events for sovereign CDS, and they differ from corporate CDS in that “bankruptcy” is not one of them (that's a concept ...
  166. [166]
    [PDF] CDS on US Sovereign Debt: FAQ
    May 3, 2023 · For a CDS on a sovereign reference entity, the failure-to-pay credit event is defined as follows: “Failure to pay means, after the expiration ...
  167. [167]
    [PDF] n-04-52.pdf - IRS
    A credit default swap (CDS) is a contract where one party buys protection against default of a reference entity's obligation from another party.
  168. [168]
    Writers Make Second Request For Guidance on Credit Default Swaps
    Payments made by a US person to a non-US person pursuant to a credit default swap (a "CDS") are not subject to US withholding taxes under the Internal Revenue ...Missing: payouts | Show results with:payouts
  169. [169]
    6.5 Derivative assets and derivative liabilities - PwC Viewpoint
    Derivative assets and liabilities within the scope of ASC 815 and IFRS 9 are required to be recorded at fair value at inception and on an ongoing basis.
  170. [170]
    [PDF] The PricewaterhouseCoopers Credit Derivatives Primer
    ing the credit swap. Credit swap (or credit default swap). The classic credit derivative; functions like a letter of credit or a surety bond. Enables an ...
  171. [171]
    [PDF] Derivatives and hedging handbook - KPMG International
    Oct 2, 2020 · The purpose of this Handbook is to assist you in understanding the standard on derivatives and hedging, Topic 815. Accounting literature and ...
  172. [172]
    [PDF] IFRS 9 Financial Instruments
    Accounting for credit exposures designated at fair value through ... the credit default swap prices for the borrower;. (iii) the length of time or ...
  173. [173]
    [PDF] Credit Risk and IFRS: The Case of Credit Default Swaps
    Reporting Standards (IFRS) on the relevance of accounting information in pricing credit risk in the over-the-counter Credit Default Swap (CDS) market. IFRS ...
  174. [174]
    Achieving hedge accounting in practice under IFRS 9 - PwC Viewpoint
    Credit derivatives (such as credit default swaps) that are used to hedge credit risk are accounted for at fair value through P&L, while credit exposures are ...
  175. [175]
    Credit Derivatives: Guidelines for National Banks - OCC.gov
    Aug 12, 1996 · Credit default swaps and TROR swaps are off-balance-sheet transactions. ... The absence of historical data on defaults, and on correlations ...
  176. [176]
    FIL-62-96 Attachment | FDIC.gov
    Mar 24, 2024 · For purposes of risk-based capital, credit derivatives generally are to be treated as off-balance sheet direct. credit substitutes. The ...<|separator|>
  177. [177]
    Asset Securitizations and Credit Default Swaps - Wiley Online Library
    Oct 9, 2014 · This study examines the effects of off-balance sheet versus on-balance sheet securitizations on the originator's credit risk in the default swap (CDS) market.