If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Credit default swaps

Introduction to credit default swaps. Created by Sal Khan.

Want to join the conversation?

  • blobby green style avatar for user Chris Lovato
    Do you really think it would have been that much better if the rating agencies had been from government? why? look at the SEC and CFTC. they are aware of fraud all the time and are even less inclined to do anything about it than a private entity. Just because it's government doesn't mean its immune to corruption

    (23 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • leaf green style avatar for user Inkadove
      The recent financial reform bill made several notable changes to how the rating agencies do business. Three of the most important changes are as follows:

      1: Rating agencies can now be held liable(and sued) for knowingly or recklessly giving a bad rating.

      2: Rating agencies must now disclose their methodologies, use of 3rd parties, and their track record(ratings compared to defaults)

      3: SEC regulation - the SEC has the power to decommission a ratings agency and is supposed to do a once a year examination.

      These changes have already started and are expected to be fully implemented in about 2 years.

      With these changes I expect that the rating agencies will have to be more objective - not only for fear of being sued, but also for fear of the SEC shutting them down or investors finding flaws in their methodology.
      (19 votes)
  • old spice man green style avatar for user Ossie Yangie
    Why does Moody's give the AIG a AA rating if they have no money to set aside in the first place?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • piceratops seed style avatar for user thecainvestors
      Moody's isn't entirely objective in their rating process. AIG had to pay Moody's for their initial AAA rating, and I'd assume that the more that is paid, the higher the rating. Looking back at the video and seeing how leveraged AIG is with this business model; also seeing how popular CDS's were becoming prior to the crash of '08, Moody's as well as S&P saw the potential both for profit and the colossal success of AIG.

      As a side note, AIG has had a AAA rating for quite some time (at least since 1987). In 2005, long time CEO since 1968 relinquished his position which rocked the company sending credit rating agencies to downgrading AIG to a AA rating; triggering many of AIG's Credit Default Swaps and Obligations. Since 2005, and especially in September 2008, AIG began to fall apart as scandal, Swaps, and Obligations were called at an increasing rate. This marked the beginning of AIG's downfall.
      (7 votes)
  • blobby green style avatar for user Elaine Lee
    I notice that you use the word "insure" when describing the service that AIG provides. It is my understanding that the whole reason for calling this process "credit default swaps" is because the insurance industry is better regulated and would not have allowed what you have described here, if it was simply called insurance. Is this true? And if so, why can't regulators see that insurance by any other name is still insurance?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • blobby green style avatar for user cmiddleman8
      regulators can't see this because they don't want to, wall street (along with Alan Greenspan) made plenty sure that the CDSs, derivatives, etc. remained unregulated so they could get away with this. If you objectively step back and ignore how angry this whole system makes you, you'd have to acknowledge that these guys are pretty smart for being able to get away with this and leaving the taxpayers on the hook.
      (4 votes)
  • leaf green style avatar for user David Koot
    I understand that if an insurance company with a high rating backs a loan to a company with a low rating, the loan will get a high rating. But whenever the insurance company is dependable for its survival on a bunch of companies with a low rating, wouldn't it be normal that it too would get a lower rating? Or is that a wisdom that just came after this crisis (or even corruption at the rating companies)?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • duskpin ultimate style avatar for user tuannb1997
    1) Are rating agencies bribed by Insurance Companies to give them AA or AAA or they'd look good to investors ? If not, on what grounds do the agencies rate those companies ?
    2) Did the agencies know what was going wrong with AIG before the financial crisis ? I mean, obviously, some analysts working for Moody's must have had suspicion about AIG's imbalance between Equity and Value of Assets Insured, right ?
    3) If, all of a sudden, Moody's decided to rate down AIG, would that lead to investors being so panic that they would all come to AIG to claim their money back ? I simply think, such a scenario would result immediately in AIG's bankruptcy and still the same financial crisis.
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • primosaur ultimate style avatar for user KAWarrior
    What are the highest to lowest Ratings?


    Does it go to F?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • leaf orange style avatar for user Josh Claar
    At about , Sal is saying "as long as Moodys doesn't get suspicious". Isn't it their job to investigate? How does Moodys make it's money? Aren't they supposed to be trustworthy?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user lambie1020
    I may have missed it however - who PAYS the private entities such as Moody's to rate?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • orange juice squid orange style avatar for user Beth Cook
    At , Sal talks about how AIG does not have to set aside funds in case Company A defaults. Are home or life insurance companies required to set aside funds for every policy that they provide?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • leaf green style avatar for user Rocky
      Hi Beth, yes most insurance companies are required to set aside what are known as 'reserves' against claims. However, the reserve requirement is not equal to 100% of the potential claims. Ultimately, the reserve requirements are established by state regulatory agencies and they use a mathematical formula to determine what the reserve requirements for the insurance company ought to be.
      (2 votes)
  • blobby green style avatar for user raphael
    Why AIG can insure trillions without corresponding significant assets? Isn't there any policies? After all these mess,now at the end of 2010, does anything really changes concerning this issue?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • leaf green style avatar for user Inkadove
      I think Khan is totally off on this one. Insurance agencies are heavily regulated. Each state regulates the insurance companies in their state through the NAIC(National Association of Insurance Commissioners)

      The NAIC has very specific and formal guidelines that ensure that insurance companies have enough assets to cover their liabilities. There is a complicated formula called Risk Based Capital(RBC) that spits out a number is representative of how much assets compared to liabilities an insurance company has(simply speaking).

      If the RBC drops below a certain number the state can take over the insurance company.

      So there ARE checks to ensure an insutance company does not have 1 trillion in liability and 1 billion in assets. The biggest problem is estimating the worth of those assets or the extent of those liabilities - how much liability is a 1M loan to a BB company? How much of an asset is a 1% revenue stream worth if it is from a BB+ company?

      PS AIG's insurance companies were doing fine in 2009 - it was the risky activities in its AIG Financial Products arm that were the problem.

      Insurance companies/insurance = regulated
      Financial products/credit swaps = unregulated
      (1 vote)

Video transcript

Let's say that I'm a pension fund, and I have money to lend to other people. And I want to lend it to other people, because that way I can get interest on it instead of it just kind of sitting and doing nothing. And if I lend it to someone other than the government, I'll get better interest. So let's say that there's-- so let me draw me, I'm the pension fund. Maybe I'll drawn me in magenta. So that's me, pension fund. And let's say that there's some corporation, let's say it's GM. They make cars. I think you've heard of them. Some corporation, GM. Let's just call it Corporation A. They need to borrow money, maybe to buy a factory or to do something else, we're not going to get involved in what they need the money for. And I'd like to lend them the money. But there's an issue here. I am a pension fund. I manage the retirement fund for the teachers of California, or for the auto workers of Michigan, or whatever. And part of my charter says that I can only invest in very, very, very safe instruments. So I'm not allowed to go gamble people's money, because this is people's retirement. So I can't do very fancy things with it. I can only invest in things that are rated AAA, or let's say AA. I'm just kind of making this up on the fly. So AAA would be like the highest rated securities, right? These are things that have a very low chance of default. But Corporation A is only rated, I don't know, let's say it's rated BB. And actually, this is a good time to think about well who is doing all these ratings. And you might think, oh, it surely is a government entity, because only the government would be objective enough give all of these corporations frankly objective ratings. But unfortunately, it's not. They're private entities, that are actually paid to rate things. And I think I touched on it in the video on collateralized debt obligations. But their incentives are a little bit strange. Let's say I have Moody's. Moody's is one of the ratings agencies, and they rate Corporation A as BB. So they've said, these guys, they're pretty good, but they're not the U.S. government or something. There's a chance that they can go under, for whatever reasons, or they're sensitive to the economy as a whole. And I say, man, I would love to lend these guys money. I would love to lend these guys the $1 billion that they need. And these guys are willing to pay me 8% interest. But I can't do it, me as a pension fund, I cannot lend them money. Because I'm only allowed to lend money to A or above types of bonds. Or I can only buy A or above type of instruments. So what do I do? This guy needs money. I have money to give him, but his corporate credit rating, that was given by Moody's, just isn't high enough for me to lend him the money. And this is where credit default swaps come in. In an ideal world, I would give Corporation A, I would give them $1 billion. And then maybe they would annually give me, let me make up a number, 10% per year. And then this might have a term for 10 years, and then after 10 years, they'll pay me the $1 billon back and then I'll be happy. But as I said multiple times, I can't do it, because they are BB rated. And my charter says I can only invest in A rated bonds. So I go to another entity. And let's call this entity AIG. And these entities are essentially insurance companies on debt. And I'm calling this one AIG because AIG actually did do this. But it could be anything. A lot of banks did this, a lot of insurance companies did this. There are some companies that just specialize in writing collateralized-- sorry, in writing credit default swaps. What does AIG do for me? Well first of all, it's important to note that Moody's has given AIG, I don't know, let's give it a AA rating. I don't know what their actual rating was. They said, you know what, they are almost risk-free. They're almost like the U.S. government. Moody's has looked at their books, or supposedly, or hopefully has looked at their books, and says, oh you know, if you loan them money, they're good for it. So they have a very, very high rating. Although, once again, you have to worry about the incentive. Because who paid Moody's to give them that rating? And whenever you're getting paid to give a rating, you have to wonder about what your incentives are, in terms of how you rate things. But anyway that's a discussion for another video. But what AIG says is, you know what pension fund? I know you want to lend Corporation A money, and Corporation A wants to borrow money from you, but you have this problem because they're BB rated. So what we're going to do is we're going to insure this bond. We're going to insure this loan that you're giving to Corporate B. What we want in return for that is an insurance premium. We want you to pay us a little bit of this interest every year. If you pay us a little bit of this interest every year, we will insure this payment. So you get 10% a year, and you give us 1% a year. So you give us 1% a year. And this is also 1%-- just to learn a little bit of financial jargon-- this is also someone would say 100 basis points. One basis point is 1/100th of 1%. So 1% of the same thing as 100 basis points. 2% is the same thing as 200 basis points. So you pay me 100 basis points of the 10% per year, and in exchange, I will give you insurance on A's debt. And in fact, it might have not even been structured this way. It might have been structured so that Corporation A right here, before even issuing the bonds, they include this insurance with the bond. So instead of giving 10%, they cut out 1% to insure it. And then these essentially become AA bonds. And why is that? Well, they're BB, but you're being insured by someone who is AA. So all of the sudden, these bonds, because they're being insured by this entity that is AA, which Moody's has determined is AA, these bonds are now good enough for my pension fund to hold. Because I said, you know what even if corporation A goes under, I have this AA guy insuring it. And so I'm fine. So this is the equivalent of holding AA bonds. And what's my effective interest rate? I'm getting 9% per year, right? I'm getting 10% per year from Corporation B, and then I have to pay 1% to AIG. And if Corporation B goes under tomorrow, AIG is going to give me my $1 billion back. And you might say, Sal, this sounds like a pretty good situation. And this is where it starts to get a little bit shady. Because AIG, they're not just insuring my debt or my loan that I gave to corporation A. And think about it, AIG didn't have to do anything. AIG didn't have to put up any collateral. AIG didn't say, you know what, out of all of our assets, here is $1 billion that we're going to set aside, just in case Corporation A doesn't pay. Right? You would think that if you wanted to be guaranteed that this money was going to come to you, this AIG corporation would have to set aside the money. But they didn't have to do that. They just have to say, hey, Moody's has said we're AA, we're good for debt. We're good for insurance. So you just pay us 1% a year and trust us, or trust Moody's, that we really are good for the money. They never had to set aside the money. You're just going on a leap of faith that, if and when Corporation A defaults, AIG is going to be good for the money. Now this is where it gets interesting. Let me erase Moody's from the screen-- actually, maybe I'll go down here. AIG didn't just insure my debt. Let's say that there is Corporation C's debt. Let's say that they're B-- I don't know, all these ratings have different terminology. They're B+ rated. Right? And let's say there's $10 billion of debt that they borrow from some other party. And in return, they give 11%. And this is Pension Fund B. And this pension fund had the same problem. They can only buy A-rated or above bonds. AIG also insures their debt that they gave to Corporation C. Maybe they'll pay them-- Corporation C is maybe a little bit riskier, so out of the 11% I have to pay maybe 150 basis points. Or 1 and 1/2%, that's the same thing as 1%. And in exchange, they insure C's debt. Now something very interesting can happen here. AIG all of the sudden has an excellent business model, right? Because they were able to get this AA rating from Moody's, they can just keep insuring other people's debt, and they don't have to put any money aside, right? They don't have to give their assets to anyone else. And they just get these income streams, right? From my pension fund they're getting 1% per year of $1 billion. From this pension fund, they're getting 1 and 1/2%, 150 basis points, per year. And they can do this, frankly, as much as they want. They could do this a thousand times. And as long as Moody's doesn't get suspicious. As long as Moody's doesn't start saying, hey, wait a second, AIG, you only have $100 billion in assets, but you have insured $1 trillion of other people's debt. Something shady going on, I'm going to lower your rating. As long as that doesn't happen, this AIG corporation can just keep insuring more and more debt. And frankly, as long as none of that debt goes bad, they just get this excellent income stream, and their CEO will get excellent bonuses. I think you start to see where you're having a single point of failure and a house of cards, and I'll continue that in the next video.