> Ts are being printed without even the slightest regard for the (old-fashioned) concept known as fiscal rectitude.
> Scarily, there are something like 70 trillion of swap contracts outstanding.
I guess there's 15-20T in T's outstanding... if there's 70T in swaps (that don't have a Fed or an army behind them), what would your comment on their 'fiscal rectitude' be?
Here is the perfect opportunity to clarify a misconception.
Swaps != debt.
Swaps do not create a liability/asset unless interest rates move, and even so, most of the swap contracts will then nullify one another.
Most banks admittedly have trillions of notional swaps on their books. The very vast majority of these offset each other. The "open position" (net exposure) in banks is very heavily monitored by the authorities. Banks are not heavily exposed.
Arguably, corporates (who hedge) and insurance companies or pension funds DO have open positions in swaps. But even so, recall that the potential liability is proportional to the likelihood of an interest rate move. Let's say an open position of 1 trillion (enormous) receiver swaps (lent) sees a 3% upmove in 5y interest rates on an average 5y maturity of the book (usually lower). Assuming rates near zero which they are, the duration calculation means a net debt becomes payable by such company of 3x5% = 15% of the notional = 150 billion USD. So 1 trillion became 150 billion, even under an extreme scenario. 1/6th. Then recall, that rates will never move 3% (300bps) in one line. They'll move a few bps every day. It'll be very clear once the liability hits, say 5-10 billion, that the counterparty cannot pay anymore, they will be made bankrupt (or close these positions) well before 3% (remember daily margining?), and the swap contracts will become null and void immediately. So now 1 trillion of swap contracts became 5-10 billion realizable debts.
By contrast, when the Treasury borrows 1 trillion, they owe a full trillion, no matter what happens in interest rates. See the difference?
Now in this analysis, I'm glossing over counterparty risk in swaps. Banks "not heavily exposed" relies on the idea that all banks are good for their commitments, since their netting is done against other banks. This is not the case in a Lehman style scenario(it's like a huge web that even neo4j would have trouble monitoring - ha ha - if a piece of the web falls away, many banks are then potentially exposed). Hence the major focus of all policy makers in the past several years has been to make derivative clearing daily-marginable, and exchange cleared. To erase that problem (outside of 6-sigma "impossible" etc - see one of my other posts)
Further to that policy maker regulation, did you know that in the latest European banking sector rules, derivative contract commitments are senior even to small depositors? So equity goes first, then subordinated (higher yield) debt, then depositors > 100k, then senior debt, then depositors < 100k, and only then, swap liabilities.
So basically what you're saying is that swaps under these new rules are good as they go south quicker and more obviously in changing market conditions, which forces the hand of the holder to plan ahead and actively hedge their bets elsewhere in real time rather than relying on the long term false security of something that might be rotten underneath?
Well, swaps will not move south any faster or slower than treasuries, usually, but the former will be a leveraged instrument so will tend to force the holder's hand to close much more quickly.
Generally I did not intend my post to exonerate swaps as a dangerous instrument. They are. Just to say that they cannot be equated with outright debt.
Nice explanation in the above post... the kind John Merriwether (LTCM) might have given in 1997 or Dick Fuld (Lehman) might have given in 2007. You're certainly right in that there's less than 70T in leverage involved in the swaps, but I think you're also right to call them dangerous.
> Scarily, there are something like 70 trillion of swap contracts outstanding.
I guess there's 15-20T in T's outstanding... if there's 70T in swaps (that don't have a Fed or an army behind them), what would your comment on their 'fiscal rectitude' be?