????在金融界,，應(yīng)該有“三振出局”的規(guī)則。假如有這樣的規(guī)則，信用違約掉期（credit default swaps,，簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)CDS）現(xiàn)在就可以進(jìn)墳?zāi)沽恕?/p>

????事實(shí)上，當(dāng)一個(gè)月前摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）宣布交易巨虧20億美元,，而且損失還在不斷擴(kuò)大的時(shí)候,，似乎并未對(duì)倫敦鯨交易的金融合約CDS究竟是什么做出多少解釋。而且,，很多報(bào)道也采用了此類(lèi)金融合約的英文首字母縮寫(xiě)CDS——導(dǎo)致美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)（AIG）破產(chǎn)的同類(lèi)合約,。

????周二（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)注：指本周二，此文寫(xiě)于周一）早間,，杰米?戴蒙將再次到美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)作證,，這次要回答眾議院金融服務(wù)委員會(huì)（House Financial Services Committee）的提問(wèn)。估計(jì)戴蒙可能還是那套說(shuō)辭,。除了一些細(xì)小的變化,，預(yù)計(jì)戴蒙的開(kāi)場(chǎng)白可能和上周他在參議院銀行委員會(huì)（Senate's banking committee）的說(shuō)辭一字不差。像上次一樣,，會(huì)有很多提問(wèn),，關(guān)于金融監(jiān)管，關(guān)于銀行業(yè)是否應(yīng)該獲準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資等等,。但再一次地,，不太可能有很多問(wèn)題關(guān)于CDS，關(guān)于為何允許CDS交易繼續(xù)存在,，而且基本上缺乏監(jiān)管,。

????CDS合約允許投資者和交易員根據(jù)公司、國(guó)家或個(gè)人會(huì)不會(huì)償還貸款進(jìn)行相應(yīng)押注,。理論上,，CDS的作用就像是保險(xiǎn)合同。賣(mài)方承諾如果CDS所基于的貸款未獲償付,，賣(mài)方將彌補(bǔ)買(mǎi)方的損失,。事實(shí)上，CDS基本上不這么用。人們很少持有CDS,，除非發(fā)生違約,。事實(shí)上，CDS往往用于交易,，理論上CDS的價(jià)格基于借款人的信用度上漲或下跌,。

????當(dāng)然，只是因?yàn)镃DS近來(lái)引發(fā)了多場(chǎng)危機(jī),，并不是禁止它們的理由,。1987年或2000年的股災(zāi)后，股票也沒(méi)有被禁,。取消CDS的理由是它不起效,。路透（Reuters）近日?qǐng)?bào)道，倫敦鯨的交易以及期待從摩根大通巨額頭寸平倉(cāng)中獲利的對(duì)沖基金的交易,，導(dǎo)致某些CDS合約價(jià)格上下波動(dòng),，即便是合約所基于的公司實(shí)際信用度并未發(fā)生變化。Rochdale Securities銀行業(yè)分析師迪克?伯弗表示,，倫敦鯨的交易顯示,，CDS市場(chǎng)被操控，“這個(gè)市場(chǎng)有點(diǎn)問(wèn)題,?！?/p>

????比如，今年早些時(shí)候,，與麥當(dāng)勞（McDonald's）相關(guān)的CDS合約在這家連鎖快餐廳公司幾無(wú)消息傳出并且絕無(wú)理由懷疑麥當(dāng)勞償債能力的情況下大漲了19%,。與此同時(shí)，麥當(dāng)勞的股價(jià)基本持平,，下跌1.1%,。有時(shí)，市場(chǎng)會(huì)完全脫離現(xiàn)實(shí),。這就是我們?yōu)槭裁磿?huì)有泡沫,。但CDS市場(chǎng)的問(wèn)題是交易非常清淡,，一個(gè)交易對(duì)手的舉動(dòng)就可能導(dǎo)致市場(chǎng)扭曲,。結(jié)果就是市場(chǎng)不再理性。

????In finance, there should be a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule. If there were, credit default swaps would be headed for the graveyard.

????Indeed, when JPMorgan Chase (JPM) announced its $2 billion and counting trading loss a month ago, there seemed to be little explanation of what exactly credit default swaps, the financial contracts the London Whale had been trading, were. Instead, many stories used this short-hand description for the financial contracts instead: the same things that caused AIG to go bust.

????On Tuesday morning, Jamie Dimon will be in front of Congress again, this time to answer questions from the House Financial Services Committee. Dimon is expected to stick to the same script, literally. Save a few small changes, Dimon's opening remarks are expected to be nearly word-for-word identical to those he delivered when he testified in front of the Senate's banking committee last week. Like last time, there will be a lot of questions about financial regulation and whether banks should be allowed to place risky bets. But once again there is unlikely to be a lot of questions about credit default swaps and why they are allowed, mostly unregulated, to continue to exist.

????Credit default swaps, or CDS, are contracts that allow investors and traders to bet on whether a company, a country or a group of companies, countries or individuals will pay back their loans. In theory, CDS work like insurance contracts. Sellers promise to cover the losses of the buyer of the contract if the loan the CDS is based on isn't repaid. In fact, CDS aren't really used that way. CDS are rarely held until a default occurs. Instead they are traded, in theory rising and falling based on the credit worthiness of borrower or borrowers.

????Of course, just because CDS have been at the heart of a number of recent blow-ups isn't a reason to ban them. Stocks weren't banished after 1987, or 2000. The reason to get rid of CDS is that it doesn't work. Reuters recently reported that trading by the London Whale, and thehedge funds that were looking to make money off of the unwinding of the bank's outsized trades, caused the price of certain CDS contracts to jump and fall, even though the actual credit worthiness of the companies the contracts were based on hadn't changed. Bank analyst Dick Bove for Rochdale Securities says the London Whale trades show that the CDS market is manipulated. "There's something wrong with this market," says Bove.

????Earlier this year, CDS contracts tied to McDonald's (MCD), for instance, rose 19%, during a period when there was almost no news about the restaurant company, and certainly no reason to suspect McDonald's would have a harder time paying back its debt. In the same time, McDonald's stock price barely moved, down 1.1%. Markets can become out of touch with reality for some time. That's how we get bubbles. But the problem with the CDS market is that it's so thinly traded that the actions of one player can cause market distortions. That's supposed to be left to the idiocy of crowds.