CDS Spread DV01, Convexity, and Total Position PnL
Summary
This discussion explains why a protection seller’s realized mark-to-market may differ sharply from a simple estimate based on spread change times SpreadDV01. The example compares a projected gain from a credit spread tightening with the smaller change in the contract’s upfront value, alongside premium income. It frames selling protection as taking exposure similar to holding the reference entity’s synthetic debt, so several market effects can influence the position’s value.
The answer identifies shifts in the relevant sovereign risk-free curve, changes in curve shape and roll-down, and widening liquidity or bid-ask spreads as possible contributors to the discrepancy. It also notes that convexity can affect the relationship between spread changes and value changes. The exchange does not provide enough trade and market details for a complete PnL attribution, and its explanations are possibilities rather than a demonstrated breakdown of the example. It offers no general calculation procedure for total CDS PnL, so the main lesson is to consider broader rate, curve, liquidity, and nonlinear effects when interpreting SpreadDV01.
Key ideas
- SpreadDV01 estimates sensitivity to a spread move, but does not by itself explain a position’s total PnL.
- A protection seller has exposure resembling a long position in the reference entity’s synthetic debt.
- Risk-free rate moves, curve shape, roll-down, and liquidity can also affect CDS valuation.
- Convexity can make actual value changes differ from a linear DV01 estimate.
- A precise PnL attribution requires additional trade and market details.
Tags
Full text
# "Where is my money": CDS Sensitivities, Spreads and PnL Calculations # "Where is my money": CDS Sensitivities, Spreads and PnL Calculations Trading CDS I experienced something unexpected: - A half year ago I sold protection on a single name at a spread of 190bp - The coupon was 5% and the contract had a maturity of five years. - Using Bloombergs CDSW function I noticed that the SpreadDV01 was ~480€ - I paid an upfront of ~141k (+ 4k accrueds) A half year later: - the CDS was quoted with a spread of 160bp. I thought "Great! Thats a profit of 14k€ (=30bp*480€) addional to my received premiums of 25,000€ (5%*0,5*1MM). So a total PnL of +39k" - When I was validating the position I discovered that my position only gained ~2.6k on value (the upfront I would receive now is 143,6k) addtional to my collected premium of 25k Besides how is this possible my questions are: - why the SpreadDV01 failed to predict my return on this position? - are other there tools used by practitioners to approximate the total PnL of a CDS position? Thank you in advance for your answers. ## Answer by AlRacoon (score 5, accepted) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/43629 You would need to provide more details for an accurate PnL attribution. However, here are some additional points to consider that might help. When you sold protection, you effectively became long the 5Yr synthetic debt of the reference entity at a credit spread of 190bps. I assume that the reference entity and the sovereign where the company is domiciled is European given that you are quoting the spread dv01 in Euro terms. Also, the sovereign is probably a dicier sovereign given the high risk free rate (Greece, Italy?) So as being long the debt, you would be correct that you should have benefitted from a tightening of the credit spread. However, since you did not benefit as much as you thought, there must have been an increase in the risk free interest rate of the sovereignty that the company was domiciled. Another factor that may have impacted your PnL is the shape of the yield curve could have changed. While most long debt positions benefit from the concept of roll down in that yield curves tend to be positively sloped, the sovereign curve where your company is domiciled may have inverted in 4.5-5Yr maturity range and therefore your position would have been hurt by the roll down effect. (In the US, the curve had inverted at the 5Yr point recently). Since the last 6 months had a lot of volatility and hence created some consternation among market participants, the liquidity, and hence the bid-ask spread of the reference credit and the sovereign may have widened which could have hurt your position. A point that should have helped you is the convexity. Since you are long the debt, a big move in rates would have some convexity that would have improved your position beyond what you would have expected from the DVO1 prediction. ## Answer by DataAdventurer (score 1) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44327 @AlRacoon was completely right by suspecting convexity for this issue. The Chart below shows the impact of the convexity in this trade very well.
Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.