In his latest analysis, Goldman credit strategist Charles Himmelberg resumes the firm's party line of claiming the market is overestimating the risk impact of "fat tail" events, because presumably, as Goldman's Javier Pérez de Azpillaga showed previously, even though Spain is insolvent, is facing a massive budget deficit, has a huge debt-rolling problem, and has a banking system that is locked out of capital markets, all is good (full report here) and all those who are betting on Europe's demise are about to lose money (how this Eurozone optimism jives with Goldman's recent downgrade of the EURUSD to 1.15 is beyond non-lobotomized comprehension, so we'll just leave it be as yet another fully expected Goldman inconsistency). Yet, as ever so often, inbetween the conflicts of interest, Goldman does tend to provide that occasional piece of useful, actionable information. In this case, Himmelberg has done a very relevant analysis comparing Jump to Default costs for CDS and for out-of-the-money equity puts on distressed public names, and concludes that purchasing CDS provides a far better, lower-costing entry point to hedge against default. As he notes: "Our results show that pricing in the two markets follows the same trend, but that credit protection may be cheaper in many cases." Specifically, anyone wishing to arb the mispricing of credit and equity downside protection would be wise to put on a pair trade basket where one buys CDS/sells OTM Puts in SFI, LIZ, BC, MIR, NYT, and DDS and the inverse (sells CDS/buys OTM Puts) in F, AMR, MGM, TSO, SFD and LEN on a DV01 neutral basis, and wait for risk normalization between equity and credit to lead to a recoupling in the spreads.