Understanding the End User Exemption

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Over at New Deal 2.0, former Goldman Sachs VP Wallace Turbeville explains derivative trading to end users in an interesting way that I haven’t seen before. You should read the whole thing, but in a nutshell here’s how he describes the process:

  1. A bank sells a derivative to an end user. For example, for an airline company it might be a hedge against fuel prices rising in the future.
  2. If the hedge goes the customer’s way (i.e., fuel prices go up), the bank pays up. But if the hedge goes the bank’s way (i.e., fuel prices decline), the end user has to pay up.
  3. As always, though, there’s a risk of default. Maybe the end user won’t make good on his payment.
  4. In essence, then, the bank is selling both a hedge and a loan at the same time, and assuming credit risk on the loan.

Why do this? Why not, instead, extend an ordinary loan, have the customer post that as collateral, and sell the hedge at a lower price since there’s no credit risk built in? Turbeville:

It is widely known that deployment of credit capacity to trading with a company is far more profitable than conventional lending. This means that

  • the profit from a trade coupled with the extension of credit through forgone posting of collateral is far more profitable than
  • the profit from a conventional loan plus the profit from a trade in which no credit is extended.

Viewed from the perspective of the company making the trade, it is either willing to pay more for the packaged deal or it does not properly evaluate the all-in cost.

Turbeville goes on to explain in more detail why traders benefit from this arrangement (it locks in customers and helps banks build dominant positions in particular markets) but then circles back to his starting point:

There is a lingering, unanswered question raised by the foregoing discussion: Why do the end users prefer packaged credit and trading deals, even though the banks make more than the unpackaged alternative?

The obvious possibilities are inertia and convenience — though given the efficiency of modern finance it’s hard to believe that separate credit facilities would really end up being much less convenient, especially for large, sophisticated companies. But in a followup piece, Turbeville suggests a different answer: a conventional loan is carried on a corporation’s balance sheet as debt, while the embedded loan in a packaged derivative isn’t. So the packaged deal provides an attractive accounting loophole:

Avoiding an accounting exemption is very appealing. But perhaps the better way to address this is to encourage efficient, third party systems, short of full on clearing, to track these exposures and to facilitate efficient collateral funding in bi-lateral transactions. The simple exemption for end users in financial regulation does not encourage the development of such a system. It ignores a troubling practice which need not burden the marketplace.

In other words, maybe the end user exemption that just about everyone supports isn’t such a great idea after all. Via Mike Konczal.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate