#### What Is A Derivative?

A *derivative *is a contract that derives its value by reference to “something else.” That something else can be pretty much anything that can be objectively observed and measured. For example, two parties, A and B, could get together and agree to take positions on the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). That’s an index that can be objectively observed and measured. A could agree to pay B the total percentage-wise return on that index from October 31, 2007 to October 31, 2008 multiplied by a notional amount, where that amount is to be paid on October 31, 2008. In exchange, B could agree to make quarterly payments of some percentage of the notional amount (the swap fee) over that same time frame. Let’s say the notional amount is $100 (a position that even Joe The Plumber can take on); the swap fee is 10% per annum; and the total return on the DJIA over that period is 15%. It doesn’t take Paul Erdős to realize that this leaves B in the money and A out of the money (A pays $15 and receives $10, so he loses $5).

But what if the DJIA didn’t gain 15%? What if it tanked 40% instead? In that case, we have to look to our agreement. Our agreement allocated the DJIA’s returns to B and fixed payments to A. It didn’t mention DJIA loss. The parties can agree to distribute gain and loss in the underlying reference (the DJIA) any way they like: that’s the beauty of enforceable contracts. Let’s say that under their agreement, B agreed to pay the negative returns in the DJIA multiplied by the notional amount. If the market tanked 40%, then B would have made the fixed payments of 10% over the life of the agreement, plus another 40% at the end. That leaves him down $50. Bad year for B.

#### Follow The Money

So what is the net effect of that agreement? B always pays 10% to A, whether the DJIA goes up, down, or stays flat over the relevant time frame. If the DJIA goes up, A has to pay B the percentage-wise returns. If the DJIA goes down, B has to pay A the percentage-wise losses. So, A profits if the DJIA goes down, stays flat, or goes up less than 10% and B profits if the DJIA goes up more than 10%. So, A is short on the DJIA going up 10% and B is long on the DJIA going up 10%. This is accomplished without either of them taking actual ownership of any stocks in the DJIA. We say that A is *synthetically shorting *the DJIA and B is *synthetically long* on the DJIA. This type of agreement is called a *total return swap* (TRS). This TRS exposes A to the *risk *that the DJIA will appreciate by more than 10% over the life of the agreement and B to the risk that the DJIA will not appreciate by more than 10%.

#### What Is Risk?

There are a number of competing definitions depending on the context. My own personal view is that risk has two components: (i) the occurrence of an event and (ii) a magnitude associated with that event. This allows us to ask two questions: What is the probability of the event occurring? And if it occurs, what is the expected value of its associated magnitude? We say that P is *exposed *to a given risk if P expects to incur a gain/loss if the risk-event occurs. For example, in the TRS between A and B, A is exposed to the risk that the DJIA will appreciate by more than 10% over the life of agreement. That risk has two components: the event (the DJIA appreciating by more than 10%) and a magnitude associated with that event (the amount by which it exceeds 10%). In this case, the occurrence of the event and its associated magnitude are equivalent (any non-zero positive value for the magnitude implies that the event occurred) and so our two questions reduce to one question: what is the expected value of the DJIA at the end of the agreement? That obviously depends on who you ask. So, can we then infer that A expects the DJIA to gain less than 10% over the life of the agreement? No, we cannot. If A actually owns $100 worth of the DJIA, A is fully hedged and the agreement is equivalent to bona fide financing. That is, A has no exposure to the DJIA (short on the DJIA through the TRS and long through actually owning it) and makes money only through the swap fee. B’s position is the same whether A owns the underlying index or not: B is long on the DJIA, as if he actually owned it. That is, B has synthesized exposure to the DJIA. So, if A is fully hedged the TRS is equivalent to a financing agreement where A “loans” B $100 to buy $100 worth of the DJIA, and then A holds the assets for the life of agreement (like a collateralized loan). As such, B will never agree to pay a swap fee on a TRS that is higher than his cost of financing (since he can just go get a loan and buy the reference asset).

#### How Derivatives Create, Allocate, And “Transfer” Risk

It is commonly said that derivatives transfer risk. This is not technically true, but often appears to be the case. Derivatives operate by creating risks that were not present before the parties entered into the derivative contract. For example, assume that A and B enter into an *interest rate swap*, where A agrees to pay B a fixed annual rate of 8% and B agrees to pay A a floating annual rate, say LIBOR, where each is multiplied by a notional amount of $100. Each party agrees to make quarterly payments. Assume that on the first payment date, LIBOR = 4%. It follows that A owes B $2 and B owes A $1. So, after netting, A pays B $1.

Through the interest rate swap, A is exposed to the risk that LIBOR will fall below 8%. Similarly, B is exposed to the risk that LIBOR will increase above 8%. The derivative contract created these risks and assigned them to A and B respectively. So why do people say that derivatives transfer risk? Assume that A is a corporation and that before A entered into the swap, A issued $100 worth of bonds that pay investors LIBOR annually. By issuing these bonds, A became exposed to the risk that LIBOR would increase by any amount. Assume that the payment dates on the bonds are the same as those under the swap. A’s annual cash outflow under the swap is (.08 – LIBOR) x 100. It’s annual payments on the bonds are LIBOR x 100. So it’s total annual cash outflow under both the bonds and the swap is:

(.08 – LIBOR) x 100 + LIBOR x 100 = .08 x 100 – LIBOR x 100 + LIBOR x 100 = 8%.

So, A has taken its floating rate LIBOR bonds and effectively transformed them into fixed rate bonds. We say that A has achieved this fixed rate *synthetically*.

At first glance, it appears as though A has transferred its LIBOR exposure to B through the swap. This is not technically true. Before A entered into the swap, A was exposed to the risk that LIBOR would increase by any amount. After the swap, A is exposed to the risk that LIBOR will fall under 8%. So, even though A makes fixed payments, it is still exposed to risk: the risk that it will pay above its market rate of financing (LIBOR). For simplicity’s sake, assume that B was not exposed to any type of risk before the swap. After the swap, B is exposed to the risk that LIBOR will rise above 8%. This is not the same risk that A was exposed to before the swap (any increase in LIBOR) but it is a similar one (any increase in LIBOR above 8%).

#### So What Types Of Risk Can Be Allocated Using Derivatives?

Essentially any risk that has an objectively observable event and an objectively measureable associated magnitude can be assigned a financial component and allocated using a derivative contract. There are derivative markets for risks tied to weather, energy products, interest rates, currency, etc. Wherever there is a business or regulatory motivation, financial products will appear to meet the demand. What is important is to realize that all of these products can be analyzed in the same way: identify the risks, and then figure out how they are allocated. This is usally done by simply analyzing the cash flows of the derivative under different sets of assumptions (e.g., the DJIA goes up 15%).

Pingback: Systemic Counterparty Confusion: Credit Default Swaps Demystified « Derivative Dribble

Pingback: Synthetic Instruments Demystifiedfrom Derivative Dribble by erdosfan « James Falvo’s Weblog

“So, A has taken its floating rate LIBOR bonds and effectively transformed them into fixed rate bonds. We say that A has achieved this fixed rate synthetically.”

Why would anyone do this if you could just study and buy fixed rate bonds?

The only point seems this:

“This is not the same risk that A was exposed to before the swap (any increase in LIBOR) but it is a similar one (any increase in LIBOR above 8%).”

In other words, its only real use is for hedging. Using such a device to counteract risk you have of the investment you first procure going the other way, and you pocket the difference.

Again, if my question doesn’t make sense, don’t bother with it, and I’ll continue reading the other questions.

Hi Don,

Why would someone want to “swap out” of floating rate loans? Some institutions do well at dealing with interest rate risk. Others do not. Many companies would prefer fixed liabilities to variable ones since this makes planning easier. So, such firms would prefer to borrow at a fixed rate. The problem is that their investors might demand a floating one.

Also, I think you’ve confused the “seller” and the “buyer” of the bonds. Companies sell bonds to raise money, investors buy them. The swap in the example doesn’t affect the investors’ cash flows. They still get LIBOR.

I think that answers both of your questions. If it doesn’t, let me know.

I was hoping that this might amuse you. You don’t need to post it:

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer confidence plunged to its lowest on record in October, a private research group said Tuesday, as stock markets dropped sharply and companies laid off workers.

The Conference Board said the consumer confidence index fell to 38, down from a revised 61.4 in September and significantly below analysts’ expectations of 52.

That’s the lowest level for the index since the Conference Board began tracking consumer sentiment in 1967, and the third-steepest drop. A year ago, the index stood at 95.2.”

I’m wondering how low this index could go, and could we invest in a derivative based on it. From Derivative Dribble:

“Essentially any risk that has an objectively observable event and an objectively measureable associated magnitude can be assigned a financial component and allocated using a derivative contract. There are derivative markets for risks tied to weather, energy products, interest rates, currency, etc. Wherever there is a business or regulatory motivation, financial products will appear to meet the demand.”

Is there any demand? I’m hoping I understand this concept finally with your help.

You can use options on single name stocks, or indices like the Dow to make profit or loss, these are indeed OTC Derivatives. I’m not aware there’s a market in consumer confidence options at present, as the level of the index is somewhat subjective and doesn’t relate to any direct financial consequences. But, imagine you felt the Dow was going to fall, you could buy a put option at a suitable strike with the hope of profiting by receiving a payment from the option seller once the market goes below the strike you agree. Options are confusing as they come in permutations of buy/sell call/put – Eurex have a nice poster which shows the outcome of each, you can find more via Google.

Pingback: Securitization Demystified « Derivative Dribble

Pingback: VABALOG » Blog Archive » Tuletisinstrumentidest, ilma süüdistuste ja paanikata

Pingback: Synthetic CDOs Demystified « Derivative Dribble

Pingback: A Conceptual Framework For Analyzing Systemic Risk « Derivative Dribble

Pingback: How To Speak “Structured Finance” « Derivative Dribble

Pingback: Heavy-Handed Politics Could Boost Bank Reform, Stock Prices and the Economy