
Challenged single-name CDS market takes optimistic turn
Trading has boomed despite recent criticism, but can the market regain its former strength?
Single-name credit-default swap (CDS) volumes may have jumped to a nine-year high last quarter, but the market remains a shadow of its former self and continues to show signs of illiquidity.
Even as participants reject recent regulatory attention on the market’s supposed opacity and lack of central clearing, they point to ongoing concerns about limited dealer activity and regulatory constraints that could hamper a sustained revival.
Still, the good news for liquidity is hard to miss. With average daily volumes (ADV) exceeding $20 billion, trading in the first quarter rose to its highest level since the second quarter of 2014, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation figures for the top 1,000 single names.
Quarterly volumes had already been rising from their 2019 and 2020 lows, but the first quarter’s activity nearly doubled volumes from the prior three-month period. The gains were widely distributed, with the average name on the DTCC’s list seeing its ADV jump from $15.4 million to $29.1 million.
The gains meant that contracts on more reference entities traded at least $10 million ADV than they have since late 2015. CDS trading on 40 reference entities exceeded $100 million notional a day, the most since the second quarter of 2014.
But the good news papers over the market’s hard-to-ignore cracks.
Even with the first quarter’s record volumes, the DTCC’s list continued to feature fewer names than in the past. While the average volume on each name has risen, the universe of tradeable names has shrunk.
So too has the number of dealers servicing the product. The average reference entity featured on the DTCC’s fourth-quarter list had 4.7 dealers trading the name, a slight drop from the previous quarter and a continued decline in competition.
The proportion of featured reference entities with at least five and at least 10 dealers trading the names has remained relatively steady in recent years. Last quarter, half of the names had fewer than five interested dealers, while 92% had fewer than 10.
For a market that trades on a request-for-quote basis, a smaller dealer base makes the market more dependent on a single dealer’s activity and priorities, and gives banks less opportunity to hedge their own exposure.
“There is no real depth. It is difficult to transfer a large size, and the market-makers are very defensive and quite scared about offering liquidity. There is clearly lack of motivation to develop this market. I don’t really understand why,” laments a buy-side trader of single-name CDSs.
In late March, Andrea Enria, chair of the European Central Bank’s supervisory board, called the single-name market “very opaque, very shallow and very illiquid”. It came after a small trade in Deutsche Bank’s CDS reportedly caused the spread to blow out, causing a knock-on effect on its share price.
“With a few millions, you can move the CDS spreads of trillion-euro-asset banks and contaminate stock prices and possibly also deposit outflows. So that is something that concerned me a lot,” said Enria in a question-and-answer session on March 28.
Enria’s comments elicited a defence from the derivatives industry body, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, which pointed to post-financial crisis measures forcing the market to report trades to regulators and to publicly available repositories. Isda also noted the level of clearing coverage for single names.
Instead of focusing on clearing and transparency, participants argue the market’s decline has been much of the regulators’ own making, particularly the change in capital requirements for structured products such as collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).
“The story behind single-name liquidity is more the story of the consequences of killing the bespoke market for synthetic CDO products. This had huge repercussions on liquidity, hedging, the organisation of desks within banks, and so on. To recover, the CDS market needs to find investors willing to be long. The way it was done previously was through bespoke baskets,” says another buy-side CDS trader.
In synthetic products, banks wrap together single-name CDSs and sell slices of the resulting package to investors according to risk. The process boosts single-name trading and creates an exposure for the bank to hedge, further supporting liquidity.
The synthetic market still sees trading, but post-crisis capital requirements have helped dampen activity by making it unattractive for banks to hold tranches of synthetics on their books as they once would.
Traders say activity depends on whether the reference entity features in an index, since traders will look to arbitrage dislocations between an index and its constituents, known as skew. Trading the basis between CDSs and corresponding bonds also helps drive trading.
Given the changes weighing on single-name CDS trading in the past decade, the question now facing the market is whether the shift from a persistent low-rate environment that made it easier for challenged companies to take on debt – and likely helped jumpstart trading visible in last quarter’s gains – can prove to be a sustainable boost for the product.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
FX-style crypto platforms could bridge gap with TradFi
Emergence of execution-only ECNs, prime brokers and clearing houses brings new confidence in crypto
Skew this: taking the computational burden off basket options
Dan Pirjol presents a snap formula for estimating implied volatility skew in an instant
Shhh, don’t tell: the struggle to keep skew under wraps
Liquidity recycling by clients has made it more difficult for banks to keep skews quiet
How a machine learning model closed a hidden FX arbitrage gap
MUFG Securities quant uses variational inference to control the mid volatility of options
The AOCI elephant in the DFAST room
After March’s banking crisis, Fed stress tests should adopt harsher and wider ranging rate scenarios
China needs an RMB liquidity absorber – HK might be the answer
Increasing HKMA’s CNH debt issuance could help cement renminbi’s role in financial markets
Into the quantiverse: real-world pricing goes arbitrage-free
QRM quants claim to have bridged divide across ‘multiverse’ of fixed-income models
A three-point turn in derivative design
Citibank quant’s triangle method allows information geometry to be applied to hedge structuring