Display:
How can allowing default insurance to be purchased by those with no insurable interest be anything but regulatory dereliction of duty?  How can purchasing or allowing default insurance to be purchased for multiple amounts of the potential default conceivably be justified, other than as a means of facilitating fraud?

Given that these products were and are largely to totally unregulated, why should we not expect that there are examples of multiple CDSs on a given default exposure, in some cases by the same institution?  Given the lack of appetite for prosecuting very wealthy individuals, why should there not be cases that have deliberately been set up to fail and then multiply insured?  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 24th, 2009 at 10:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I insure my car more than once, and its insurance needs to pay out, it only pays out once, the other cliams are void, and if it turns out i've done something to bring about the claim, then I get arrested for fraud. How come it dosn't work the same way with Finance houses?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Mar 24th, 2009 at 10:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good question.  Have you heard of any such prosecutions? Do you have any confidence that lack of such prosecutions is evidence of lack of fraud?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 24th, 2009 at 11:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
not since Nick Leeson and no

 according to the Financial Ombudsman

The essential components of fraud are intent to deceive and desire to induce the firm to pay more than it otherwise would. Establishing these points can require an analysis of the claimant's motives.

Unless you wish to ad,it it's all just a big casino I think it fits.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 08:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is Financial Ombudsman describing UK or USA law or is there a difference on this?  It would seem reasonable to revise the law to make fraud prosecutions less dependent on demonstrating intent, or perhaps create a different legal category in both criminal and civil law not dependent on proving intent.  But then the politicians have another term for those we would call fraudsters: contributors.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 11:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's UK law in describing Insurance Fraud, but I would think that the definition and rules would pass fairly openly between the two.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 11:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the specified events occur. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance, for example:

CDS were deliberately set up as "not insurance" so they wouldn't need to be regulated and they wouldn't be subject to capital requirements (i.e., no need to have enough capital to pay out, unlike regular insurance).

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 05:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series