This is a story about worthless paper...
Do you want to know how to make an infinite amount of money? First, you should obtain a boat. Then, take out as many insurance policies as you can afford the premiums of, on the boat. Then, sink the boat and claim on the insurance policies.
Why can't you do this? Well, because it's illegal to insure something more than once, for the very reason that it creates a financial incentive to go around sinking boats. People respond to economic incentives.
However, it is possible to take out as many life insurance policies as you want. The reason being, that it is assumed that because murder is illegal and suicide used to be (now it's decriminalised) then there is some protection from those who wish to profit from death.
But what about a company? Is a company a person-like entity? Should it be possible to buy life insurance policies for a company?
What is a Credit Default Swap? Well, the simplest explanation is that it's a life insurance policy for a company. If a company gets into a financially distressed situation where it can no longer repay its debts, then the Credit Default Swap will pay out. This is called a credit event. Basically, a credit event normally means the company is dying, because they can't pay their debts. A company that defaults on its debts is never going to be able to refinance themselves after a credit event, because their credit rating will be junk. Game over.
So, if you allow people to take out an infinite amount of Credit Default Swaps, betting that a company is going to go bust, aren't you economically incentivising that event to happen? If there's a bigger and bigger pool of money that is hoping that a company goes bankrupt, that is far bigger than the pool of money who want to see the company rescued, isn't the market going to quite naturally want to push that company under, so that almost everybody gets a big payday?
We know that markets can be manipulated, and because Credit Default Swaps are an Over-The-Counter (OTC) product, there is no market regulation. It's not possible to know who is dealing in these financial instruments, and who stands to benefit. They're kind of ideal for insider trading, because they just don't have the same kind of traceability of equities that are traded on stock exchanges.
The other un-nerving thing about Credit Default Swaps, is that there is no underwriter, and no need to prove that you have sufficient collateral to cover the paper that you have printed. It's possible for organisations to sell vast quantities of Credit Default Swaps, and have nowhere near enough money to cover the losses if the credit events happen.
In the insurance market of Lloyds, there are wealthy names who provide the collateral - cash, precious metals, priceless artworks, property, liquid assets (like shares) etc. etc. - to make sure that the money is there in the event of an earthquake, flood, fire or whatever massive disaster might affect the insurance industry in a major way.
However, in the derivatives market, only the mature products like Futures and Options would have margin calls and require collateral to make sure that losses never exceed one counterparty's ability to pay. Credit Default Swaps have been allowed to be printed completely without regulation, which is concerned with making sure that a credit event wouldn't totally wipe out the risk holders.
Some measures put the Credit Default Swaps market at about $16 trillion, however, when all the contracts were entered into the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's central system in 2008, the aggregate notional value of the contracts was closer to $2 quadrillion ($1,700,000,000,000,000). That's a shit tonne of worthless paper.
But is it worthless? Well, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a credit event, the money that was demanded by those looking to cash in their Credit Default Swaps would have brought down massive companies like AIG as well as putting a deadly dent in the balance sheet of just about every investment bank with a proprietary trading desk (i.e. all of them) who had been foolishly dabbling with these stupid contracts.
Why stupid? Well, the whole idea of being able to make unlimited bets against a company is market manipulating beyond belief. Who's going to recapitalise a company and save it, when you can bet against it in secret instead? Why wouldn't anybody who gets the vaguest whiff of a company in financial trouble not rush off and place large untraceable wagers that it's going to fail?
Naked short selling is pretty bad, but there's only a certain amount of leverage that you can get, and you have to have the collateral to cover your exposure to the risk that the market might go against you. When you're talking about naked Credit Default Swaps, you're looking at the ability to get leverage of thousands of times the amount of money you're actually risking. That kind of potential profit has the ability to move the market, and collapse a company.
It's a simple moral question: if companies are like people, and therefore allowed to be 'life insured', should we be allowed to murder them so that we can cash in on their death?