arbiter
JournalsAccount

Enhanced Transparency on Single‐Name Credit Default Swaps: A Comparison Between the United States and the European Union

Randy Priem

Economic Notes2025https://doi.org/10.1111/ecno.70007article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.41

Abstract

The goal of this article is to examine and compare the various actions that both US and EU legislators have taken—or want to take—to enhance the transparency of single‐name credit default swaps (CDSs). Legislators on both sides of the Atlantic are of the view that enhanced transparency is beneficial but their focus is different. That is, the European Union focuses on enhancing pre‐ and post‐trade transparency, whereas US legislators want to mitigate manufactured credit events by requesting disclosure of large positions. Both legislators are of the view that transparency could lead to enhanced market discipline and quality but where European Regulators focus on market participants knowing whether a transaction could take place at a certain price or has happened at certain conditions, US legislators believe that investors should have a more complete picture on creditors’ incentives in restructuring and whether there is a concentrated exposure to a limited number of counterparties. This paper discusses the regulatory differences and explains them based on the different market contexts in both continents.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ecno.70007

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{randy2025,
  title        = {{Enhanced Transparency on Single‐Name Credit Default Swaps: A Comparison Between the United States and the European Union}},
  author       = {Randy Priem},
  journal      = {Economic Notes},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ecno.70007},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Enhanced Transparency on Single‐Name Credit Default Swaps: A Comparison Between the United States and the European Union

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.