Template:Crmtechniques: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[CRM technique]]s under the {{tag|Basel}} [https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca04.pfd Standardised Approach to Credit Risk] framework are  broken down as follows:
[[CRM technique]]s under the {{tag|Basel}} [https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca04.pfd Standardised Approach to Credit Risk] framework are  broken down as follows:
*'''[[Title transfer collateral arrangement|Collateralised transactions]]''': A bank has a [[credit exposure]] which it hedges<ref>This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it</ref> [[in whole or in part]] by {{csaprov|collateral}} posted by a counterparty or a [[credit support provider]].
*'''[[Title transfer collateral arrangement|Collateralised transactions]]''': A bank has a [[credit exposure]] which it hedges<ref>This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it</ref> [[in whole or in part]] by {{csaprov|collateral}} posted by a counterparty or a [[credit support provider]]. (Often there is no more than a fag paper between a [[TTCA]] and an on-balance sheet [[netting]] arrangement)<ref>In many cases (e.g. the {{isdama}} a collateral arrangement will be delivered under a “{{isdaprov|transaction}}”, and so will explicitly be a master netting arrangement</ref>.
*'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values.
*'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values.
*'''{{tag|Guarantee}}s and [[credit derivative]]s''': {{tag|Guarantees}} provided by third parties (whose [[credit risk]] isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or {{tag|credit derivative}} transactions.
*'''{{tag|Guarantee}}s and [[credit derivative]]s''': {{tag|Guarantees}} provided by third parties (whose [[credit risk]] isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or {{tag|credit derivative}} transactions.
Now note a fundamental difference between legally enforceable {{tag|netting}} arrangements and [[Guarantees]]: In a netting arrangement the full value of the offsetting transaction fully and automatically cancels out the corresponding [[exposure]]. There are no contingencies.  By contrast, collateral arrangements that don’t amount to enforceable [[netting]] arrangements, [[guarantees]] and [[CDS]] transactions ''all depend for their effectiveness on the solvency of the person providing the credit mitigation'' – if the credit support provider fails, so does the credit mitigation and the exposure remains.


{{Box|
{{Box|

Revision as of 16:14, 9 November 2016

CRM techniques under the Basel Standardised Approach to Credit Risk framework are broken down as follows:

Now note a fundamental difference between legally enforceable netting arrangements and Guarantees: In a netting arrangement the full value of the offsetting transaction fully and automatically cancels out the corresponding exposure. There are no contingencies. By contrast, collateral arrangements that don’t amount to enforceable netting arrangements, guarantees and CDS transactions all depend for their effectiveness on the solvency of the person providing the credit mitigation – if the credit support provider fails, so does the credit mitigation and the exposure remains.


An Important point

Note the difference between techniques which mitigate a credit risk that you nonetheless have — as above — and those which negate the credit exposure in the first place. So, par example, a title-transfer collateral arrangement whereby a bank transfers outright collateral to a counterparty may, as part of a valid netting agreement, mitigate that collateral but will leave you with an exposure to any excess collateral or haircut; however transfer under a pledged collateral arrangement — at least to the exent that you don't surrender legal title to the collateral at all — will leave you with no counterparty credit exposure at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it is yours, and if the counterparty goes bust, you will be entitled to have it returned in full.

  1. This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it
  2. In many cases (e.g. the ISDA Master Agreement a collateral arrangement will be delivered under a “transaction”, and so will explicitly be a master netting arrangement