Canadian government bonds safer than US?

How accurate are sovereign bond CDS? It seems that the CDS market is pricing Canadian government bonds as being safer than the US bonds. I highly doubt that the actual bonds reflect that but it's still interesting that speculators in the CDS market are expecting slightly higher default probability for the US (in fact, the US seems to be worse than Germany as well):

Sovereign credit default swaps are the market's way of putting a number on the chances of a government defaulting on its debt. Canada's five-year CDS levels are at 13 basis points - less than half the rating given to second-place Germany, at 33 points. The U.S. is at 38 points, Spain is at 93 and Korea is at 561.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 1, 2008 at 5:12 AM

    Given the extreme illiqidity of most sovereign CDS this could be a political rather then economic statement. the Mellonists are rather fond of pointing to US sovereign CDS as "evidence" that no attempt should be made to stabilize the credit mess and the economy should be liquidated instead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sivaram VNovember 1, 2008 at 10:23 PM

    I think the CDS on these big countries are probably a bit more liquid. I agree with you that they probably woudln't have the liquidity of anything like the stock market or the bond market on popular names.

    Nevertheless, wouldn't you say that the US is definitely becoming more risky? Not just because of what has happened recently but because of the deteriorating picture over the last 10 years (long before any housing bust or market meltdown)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousNovember 2, 2008 at 8:33 AM

    US government debt has been increasing at a disconcerting clip for some time and the expense of stabilizing the financial system isn't helping. Also, I would expect a big sustained increase in government programs in the wake of what many regard as the "failure" of free markets. That will not help either. So the US government is piling up debt at a dangerous rate I think.

    I definitely do not expect a straight default however, except in circumstances so dire and extreme that there isn't a counterparty on the planet who might be around to pay out on CDS.

    Inflation is a different matter And it doesn't need to be hyperinflation. 5%/year over the course of a few decades works wonders for the real value of debt. CDS are of course useless if the US government inflates away it's obligations but pays in full in nominal terms.

    So, US sovereign CDS seem useless to me except to make a political point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sivaram VNovember 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM

    Like yoursefl, I never really understood who would buy the CDS on US govt debt. Although the cost is very low, it still means that some private market participants, without anyone forcing them, are actually thinking that the US govt will default--no less in 5 years!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>