Here is a contender for most overused analogy of the year: buying naked credit default swap protection is like buying insurance against your neighbour's house burning down. Hedge funds bought it on Greek debt then fetched the fuel and matches, according to European politicians agitating for a ban. This is daft. CDS speculators do not have the power to push countries towards default. The better argument for regulatory interference in CDS markets is to protect buyers and sellers from themselves, not defend their targets.
下面這個類比可以參加「本年度最遭濫用類比」的評選：買入無實體信用違約互換合同(naked CDS)，就像是買入一份保險防範你鄰居家房子被燒燬。用鼓吹禁止此類交易的歐洲政治家們的話說，對沖基金先是買入針對希臘債務的CDS，然後取出了汽油和火柴。這種說法很愚蠢。把相關國家推向違約，CDS投機者可沒這個本事。若要支持對CDS市場實施監管幹預，更爲有力的論點應該是，要防止買賣雙方受到自身過失的影響，而不是要保護他們所針對的目標。
您已閱讀29%（736字），剩餘71%（1821字）包含更多重要資訊，訂閱以繼續探索完整內容，並享受更多專屬服務。