Richard Portes en un articulo del estilo “yo lo vengo diciendo hace tiempo”, critica y propone la prohibición del Naked CDS (tener el CDS, pero no el bono -o uno de los bonos para el posterior delivery-)
Some say that naked CDS are justified because they add liquidity to the market. But is the extra liquidity worth the costs? And we now turn to these.
The most obvious argument against naked CDS is the moral hazard arising when it is possible to insure without an ‘insurable interest’ – as in taking out life insurance on someone else’s life (unless she is a key executive in your firm, say).
The most important argument is related to this moral hazard. Naked CDS, as a speculative instrument, may be a key link in a vicious chain. Buy CDS low, push down the underlying (e.g., short it), and take a profit from both. Meanwhile, the rise in CDS prices will raise the cost of funding of the reference entity – it normally cannot issue at a rate that won’t cover the cost of insuring the exposure. That will harm its fiscal or cash flow position. Then there will be more bets on default, or at least on a further rise in the CDS price. If market participants believe that others will bet similarly, then we have the equivalent of a ‘run’. And the downward spiral is amplified by the credit rating agencies, which follow rather than lead. There is clearly an incentive for coordinated manipulation, and anyone familiar with the markets can cite examples which look very much like this. The probability of default is not independent of the cost of borrowing – hence there may be multiple equilibria, with self-fulfilling expectations, as Daniel Cohen and I have argued.