Rethinking Central CDS Counterparties

Regulators have been largely supportive of the credit default swap market’s efforts to move all standard CDS (a.k.a. “vanilla” CDS) contracts onto a central counterparty (CCP). Within a relatively short amount of time, the CDS market garnered the support of both the SEC and the Federal Reserve, setup shop, and executed CDS transactions totaling $71 billion in notional amount on ICE Trust LLC (ICE), the first of what could be a handful of CCPs. Given that the CDS market is still serving time on the pillory, this kind regulatory largess seems to imply that a CCP must undoubtedly be a good thing. However, not everyone is convinced. In a recent paper, Darrell Duffie and Haoxiang Zhu of Standford University described the state of affairs with and without a CCP in mathematical terms, proposed a measure of efficiency which they use as a proxy for counterparty risk, applied this measure to each state of affairs, and came to conclusions that are surprising, but not counterintuitive once you take a moment to consider the trade-offs between a distributed dealer system and a CCP.

There are two central points in their paper: (1) the benefits of having a CCP compared to not having a CCP (the distributed dealer system) is a function of the number of dealers (i.e., the more dealers, the more the system benefits from having a CCP) and that the current number of CDS dealers might be too small to realize any benefits from a CCP; and (2) even if having a single CCP is more efficient than not having one, having more than one CCP is never more efficient than having none at all. The assumption underlying these two points is that having a CCP as opposed to not having a CCP is in essence a choice between (i) multilateral netting across a single asset class and (ii) bilateral netting across multiple asset classes. After a bit of back and forth with Duffie, I agree that this is the case, but only in the short term. That is, there is nothing about a CCP that precludes netting across asset classes, even if the current model doesn’t facilitate it. I also disagree with the two central conclusions, mostly due to shortcomings of the model that the authors acknowledge in their paper. Specifically, they acknowledge that their model doesn’t deal with so called “knock-on effects,” or simply put, how one dealer default can lead to another. I also disagree with how Duffie and Zhu measure the benefits of netting, but we’ll spare our brains the heavy lifting and focus on the more practical issues. In this article, I’ll focus on explaining why a CCP does not preclude netting across asset classes. In a follow up article, I’ll explain how a CCP mitigates counterparty risk by facilitating trade compression.

What Is A Central Counterparty?

Rather than provide a one line, academic definition, I’ll proceed gradually, and by way of example. For starters, a CCP is not an exchange. Even with a CCP, inter-dealer trades will still be entered into between dealers, and price discovery will still take place across dealers. That is, dealers will still trade with each other, at least initially. After two dealers enter into a CDS trade, they will transfer, or “novate” their positions to the CCP. For example, in the prototypical CCP transaction, if Dealer A sells protection to Dealer B, each dealer would then novate its position to the CCP. After the novation, the state of affairs is such that A sells protection to the CPP and the CCP sells protection to B. When payments are made on the CDS, they get made to the CCP and then passed on to the parties.

At first blush, it might seem like all we’ve done is throw an extraneous and useless 3rd party into the transaction that does little more than operate as a conduit. However, this is not the case. The CCP is a distinct entity that has an interest in its own survival, and since the CCP is now liable to both dealers, it has an interest in being well-capitalized. While individual dealers also have an interest in being well-capitalized, they are unable to determine whether the CDS market as a whole is well-capitalized. And even if they were able to determine whether or not that is the case, each individual dealer has no power to convince others to increase the capital allocated to their positions. By centralizing all of the trade information into one entity and giving that entity control over the levels of collateral that dealers must post, we have created a method through which we can better ensure the adequate capitalization of the entire CDS market. For example, if one dealer is unable to fully collateralize its positions, the CCP can draw on its own capital and the capital of the other dealers to make up for the shortage. Without a CCP, that shortage of collateral would probably trigger events of default, which could “knock-on,” or cascade through the market. But as always, there’s no free lunch, and despite all of this upside, we have also concentrated the risk of counterparty failure.

Payment Netting And Payment Settlement

As Duffie and Zhu note, dealers net their payments and collateral across different types of vanilla swaps. So, for example, if Dealer A owed Dealer B $5 under a vanilla interest rate swap on some payment date, while Dealer B owed Dealer A $3 under a vanilla CDS, A would simply pay B $2. This type of bilateral netting across asset classes reduces the risk that dealers will default when compared to not having such netting because it reduces the total amount of cash that is needed to meet payment obligations. Duffie and Zhu argue that because CCPs segregate vanilla CDS trades from all other types of vanilla swaps, we miss the opportunity to net across asset classes. This is not necessarily the case.

First, we need to distinguish between the entities that are liable for the trades (i.e., the dealers and the CCP) and the entities that actually process the trade information and payments. In the case of ICE, trade information is processed by both TCC and DTCC. After that trade information gets processed, DTCC submits payment instructions to CLS Bank, which actually handles the payments. So, the CCP itself is not able to net payments across various asset classes, since it only handles CDS trades and moreover doesn’t actually settle the payments. However, DTCC will submit payment instructions to a settlement agent, CLS Bank, that actually handles the cash payments. CLS Bank could also receive payment instructions for other asset classes from the dealers (i.e., payment instructions on interest rate swaps, etc.) and net the payment instructions from the DTCC against the payment instructions from the dealers’ other activities. In fact, CLS Bank is also a leading settlement agent in the FX market.

In short, netting CDS contracts first does not preclude you from netting against other swaps later, especially since trading and settlement are handled by distinct entities.

The Rising Tide Of Class Conflict

What began as bitterness has burst into a full blown battle between the haves and the havenots.  Whatever the level of tension was at the outset of this crisis, public sentiment has turned an entirely new shade of red. But it’s not all bad. I’m sure this period in history will prove to be a petri dish for social scientists and political theorists for decades to come. So maybe we’ll learn something from it.  At a minimum, we can expect SSRN’s servers to be put to extensive use (if they’re not torched as part of the bourgeois conspiracy).

So what got this whole movement started? Aside from obvious causes like crashing asset prices and mass unemployment, I think we can find additional causes by looking to popular culture, how it shaped the public’s perception of wealth, and how wealth and the wealthy took center stage, just before they all disappeared.

The Fallacy Of Home Prices And The Reality Of Mortgage Modification

Why A Decline In Home Prices Should Not Cause Defaults

It seems that we have taken as an axiom the idea that if the price of a home drops below the face value of the mortgage, the borrower will default on the mortgage. That sounds like a good rule, since it’s got prices dropping and people defaulting at the same time, so there’s a certain intuitive appeal to it. But in reality, it makes no sense. Either the borrower can afford the mortgage based on her income alone or not.  However, it does make sense if you also assume that the borrower intended to access the equity in her home before the maturity of the mortgage. That is, the home owner bought the home with the intention of either i) selling the home for a profit before maturity or ii) refinancing the mortgage at a higher principle amount.

If neither of these are true, then why would a homeowner default simply because the home they lived in dropped in value? She wouldn’t. She might be irritated that she paid too much for a home. Additionally, she might experience a diminution in her perception of her own wealth, which may change her consumption habits. But the fact remains that at the time of purchase, she thought her home was worth X. And she agreed to a clearly defined schedule of monthly payments over the life of the mortgage assuming a price of X. The fact that the value of her home suddenly drops below X has no impact on her ability to pay, unless she planned to access equity in the home to satisfy her payment obligations.  Annoyed as she might be, she could continue to make her mortgage payments as promised.  Thus, those mortgages which default due to a drop in home prices are the result of a failed attempt to access equity in the home, otherwise known as failed speculation.

In short, if a home drops in value, it does not affect the cash flows of the occupants so long as no one plans to access equity in the home. And so, the ability of a household to pay a mortgage is unaffected in that situation. This is in contrast to being fired, having a primary earner die, or divorce. These events have a direct impact on the ability of a household to pay its mortgage.

I am unaware of any proposal to date which offers assistance to households in need under such circumstances.

The Dismal Science Of Mortgage Modification

Simply put, available evidence suggests that mortgage modifications do not work.

The charts above are from a study conducted by the Office Of the Comptroller of the Currency. The full text is available here. As the charts above demonstrate, within 8 months, just under 60% of modified mortgages redefault. That is, the borrowers default under the modified agreement. If we look only at Subprime mortgages, just over 65% of modified mortgages redefault within 8 months. This may come as a surprise to some. But in my mind, it reaffirms the theory that many borrowers bought homes relying on their ability to i) sell the home for a profit or ii) refinance their mortgage. That is, it reaffirms the theory that many borrowers were unable to afford the homes they bought using their income alone, and were actually speculating that the value of their home would increase.

Morally Hazardous And Theoretically Dubious

Why should mortgages be adjusted at all? Well, one obvious reason to modify is that the terms of the mortgages are somehow unfair. That’s a fine reason. But when did they become unfair? Were they unfair from the outset? That seems unlikely given that both the borrower and the lender voluntarily agree to the terms of a mortgage. Although people like to fuss about option arm mortgages and the like, the reality is, it’s not that hard for a borrower to understand that her payments will increase at some point in the future. Either she can afford the increased payments or not. This will be clear from the outset of the mortgage.

So, it doesn’t seem like there’s much of a case for unfairness at the outset of the agreement. Well then, did the mortgage become unfair? Maybe. If so, since the terms didn’t change, it must be because the home dropped in value and therefore the borrower is now paying above the market price for the home. That does sound unfortunate. But who should bear the loss? Should the bank? The tax payer? How about the borrower? Well, the borrower explicitly agreed to bear the loss when she agreed to repay a fixed amount of money. That is, the borrower promised “to pay back X plus interest within 30 years.” This is in contrast to “I promise to pay back X plus interest within 30 years, unless the price of my home drops below X, in which case we’ll work something out.” Both are fine agreements. But the former is what borrowers actually agree to.

Not enforcing voluntary agreements leads to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to inefficiency. This is because those who have agreements outstanding or would like to enter into other agreements cannot rely on the terms of those agreements. And so the value of such agreements decreases and the whole purpose of contracting is defeated. In a less abstract sense, uncertainty creates an environment in which it is impossible to plan and conduct business. As a result, this type of regulatory behavior undermines the availability of credit.

But even if we do not accept that voluntary agreements should be enforced for reasons of efficiency, mortgages represent some of the most clear and unambiguous promises to repay an obligation imaginable. The fact that a borrower was betting that home prices would rise should not excuse them from their obligations. There are some situations where human decency and compassion could justify a readjustment of terms and socializing the resultant losses. For example, the death of a primary earner or an act of war or terrorism. But making a bad guess about future home prices is not an act that warrants anyone’s sympathy, let alone the socialization of the losses that follow.

The Elephant In The Room

This notion that Subprime borrowers were victimized as a result of some fraudulent wizardry perpetuated by Wall Street is utter nonsense. Whether securitized assets performed as promised to investors is Wall Street’s problem. Whether people pay their mortgages falls squarely on the shoulder of the borrower. Despite this, we are spending billions of public dollars, at a time when money is scarce and desperately needed, on a program that i) is demonstrably ineffective at achieving its stated goals (helping homeowners avoid foreclosure) and ii) rewards poor decision making and imprudent borrowing. Given the gravity of the moment, a greater failure is difficult to imagine. But then again, we live in uncertain times, so my imagination might prove inadequate.