Payoff Conventions for Nth-to-Default Basket CDS
Summary
The discussion clarifies a common payoff convention for an nth-to-default basket credit default swap. Under the convention described by the respondent, earlier defaults determine when the contract reaches its trigger but do not contribute their recoveries to the settlement. The protection buyer receives a payment tied to the loss on the entity that causes the nth default, analogous to a single-name CDS, while the running spread remains unchanged until that event.
The post also stresses that nth-to-default contracts are over-the-counter and may be customized. It cites an alternative definition in which protection covers the first n defaults, as well as structures where the premium rate declines as defaults accumulate. Thus, the payoff and spread mechanics depend on the contract terms; the respondent reports experience with one convention, not a universal market rule. Pricing implications are raised by the question but not analyzed quantitatively.
Key ideas
- In the convention described, only the nth default triggers a protection payment based on that entity's loss.
- Recoveries from the first n−1 defaults do not affect that settlement convention.
- Nth-to-default swaps are bespoke OTC contracts, so documentation can specify other payoff structures.
- Alternative definitions may cover losses from the first n defaults or reduce premiums as defaults occur.
Tags
Full text
# Answer by Dimitri Vulis (score 1)
# Is the payoff of an $N^\text{th}$ to default basket CDS equal to the credit loss on only the $N^\text{th}$ default, or all prior defaults too?
I have some notes that state that the higher the value of $N$ in an $N^\text{th}$ to default basket credit default swap, the lower the credit risk exposure (to the party selling the protection) because it is less likely that there will be a payoff.
Does this mean that the payoff of an $N^\text{th}$ to default basket credit default swap is only based on the loss amount of the $N^\text{th}$ default?
Presumably, though the payoff would be less likely, the payoff would otherwise be greater if it was based on the loss amounts of all reference entity defaults. And, for a sufficiently high default correlation, this would make the CDS more expensive as the value of $N$ increased?
## Answer by Dimitri Vulis (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/67735
$n$th to default is OTC. Two counterparties can do any bespoke thing they like.
In all the NTD's that I've ever seen, and I've seen on the order of a few hundred, once $n-1$ credit events have already happened. (If $n=1$, this is just first to default.) Their recoveries don't affect anything. Also the running spread does not change.
The $n$th default works just like single-name credit default swap - the protection buyer receives notional minus the recovery of the $n$th default.
However, quoting John Hull and Alan White. "Valuation of a CDO and an $n$th to Default CDS Without Monte Carlo Simulation" http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~hull/downloadablepublications/HullWhiteCDOPaper.pdf :
> An $n$th to default credit default swap (CDS) is similar to a regular CDS. The buyer of protection pays a specified rate (known as the CDS spread) on a specified notional principal until the $n$th default occurs among a specified set of reference entities or until the end of the contract’s life. The payments are usually made quarterly. If the $n$th default occurs before the contract maturity, the buyer of protection can present bonds issued by the defaulting entity to the seller of protection in exchange for the face value of the bonds. Alternatively, the contract may call for a cash payment equal to the difference between the post-default bond value and the face value. (Footnote: This is how we will define an $n$th to default swap for the purposes of this paper. However $n$th to default swaps are sometimes defined so that there is a payoff for the first n defaults rather than just for the $n$th default. Also, sometimes the rate of payment reduces as defaults occur.)
I've never seen such NTDs, but you can write anything you like in a bespoke contract.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.