For several months, the SEC and our co-regulatory colleagues have been working closely with all companies that wish to create central counterparties…. We believe that cmE should be able to provide us with the necessary information quickly to enable the Commission to take action against its exempt applications. It is even possible that investors will effectively change sites during a credit risk swap contract in which they already participate. For example, if a CDS seller believes that the borrower is likely to become insolvent, the CDS seller may purchase his or her own CDS from another institution or sell the contract to another bank to offset the risks. The ownership chain of a CDS can be very long and confusing, making it difficult to continue the size of this market. The business was saved by the federal government, but there was a trickle-down effect. Other financial institutions that participated in the purchase and sale of swaps were also affected. This resulted in a slowdown in the CDS market, which had an impact on credit. As lenders tightened the reins of credit, Americans had fewer opportunities to borrow to buy homes or start businesses. However, there are also many differences, the main one being that an insurance contract compensates for the actual losses incurred by the policyholder on an asset with an insurable interest rate. On the other hand, a CDS offers all holders an equal payment, calculated according to a market-wide method. The owner does not need to become an owner and does not even have to suffer a loss due to the standard event.     CdS can therefore be used to speculate on debt securities.
A credit risk swap contract is the most common form of credit derivatives and may include municipal loans, emerging country bonds, mortgage-backed securities or corporate bonds. One of the main risks historically associated with credit risk swaps is the lack of federal regulation. However, this was abolished in 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act, which addresses many of the key issues that led to the 2008 financial crisis, strengthened federal regulation of CDS trade. In practical terms, the law has set up a regulator that oversees swaps and prohibits swaps deemed too risky. In September, the American International Group (AIG)  applied for an $85 billion federal loan for excessively selling CDS protection without guarding against the possibility of benchmark companies losing value, resulting in potential losses of more than $100 billion for the insurance giants. The CDS on Lehman went smoothly, as was the case with the other 11 credit events in 2008 that triggered withdrawals.  And while it is doubtful that other incidents would have been just as serious or worse if less effective instruments than CDS had been used for speculative and insurance purposes, supervisory authorities worked hard in the last months of 2008 to reduce the risk of CDS transactions.
An investor can effectively replicate the risk of a bond or bond portfolio with CDS. This can be very useful in a situation where one or more bonds are difficult to obtain on the open market. Using a portfolio of CDS contracts, an investor can create a synthetic portfolio of bonds with the same credit risk and disbursements. Despite Buffett`s criticism of derivatives, Berkshire Hathaway revealed in October 2008 to supervisors that it had entered into at least $4.85 billion in derivatives transactions.  Buffett stated in 2008 in its letter to shareholders that Berkshire Hathaway had no counterparty risk in its derivatives operations, with Berkshire requiring counterparties to pay when contracts are initiated, so Berkshire still holds the money.  Berkshire Hathaway was a major owner of Moody`s stock during the period during which it was one of the two leading credit rating agencies for subprime CDO, a form of hypo security derivatives