Credit mitigation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 16: Line 16:
These customised events tend to be more controversial, harder to articulate and more complicated: [[NAV trigger]]s may be set at different thresholds over different periods.
These customised events tend to be more controversial, harder to articulate and more complicated: [[NAV trigger]]s may be set at different thresholds over different periods.


====Margin====
====[[Netting]] and [[margin]]====
Master trading agreements also have less invasive means of mitigating
There are less invasive credit mitigation techniques.
*'''[[Netting]]''': Rights to offset positive and negative transaction values under the same agreement upon [[close out]];
*'''[[Margin]]''': The obligation:
**'''[[Variation margin]]''': To regularly transfer cash or assets representing the present net [[mark-to-market]] value of transactions under the agreement;
**'''[[Initial margin]]''':  To transfer assets representing the worst-case market movements in transactions values between [[variation margin]] payments.
So here’s the thing: As long as margin is regularly collected and paid when due, and as long as you’ve correctly calculated the initial margin you need so that it covers any “[[gap loss]]” if  your counterparty goes bust — you’re covered. The moment the counterparty misses a margin call, you have a [[failure to pay]]. It’s the cleanest event there is. You may have to wait out a grace period of a day or two - but you took initial margin to look after that.

Revision as of 13:56, 10 December 2016

The controversial protections in master trading agreements are there for one reason: To stop you losing money. They’re “credit mitigants”:

Events of default

  • Direct Failure to pay: If a party fails to pay or deliver things it owes under the agreement
  • Indirect credit issues: Things that increase the likelihood that the party will be unable to do so in the future:
  • Misrepresentation: Things that tend to undermine the comfort you took as to the party’s creditworthiness at the outset of the arrangement, such as representations and warranties no longer being true.
  • Credit support provider issues: similar things happening to the counterparty’s named guarantors or credit support providers.

These events of default live in the pre-printed the agreement, and tend not to be negotiated (except perhaps cross-default, and that's a whole different story).

Additional termination events

Brokers will usually also require customised “additional termination events” tailored to the idiosyncrasies of their clients. For example, they will require of hedge funds the right to terminate:

These customised events tend to be more controversial, harder to articulate and more complicated: NAV triggers may be set at different thresholds over different periods.

Netting and margin

There are less invasive credit mitigation techniques.

  • Netting: Rights to offset positive and negative transaction values under the same agreement upon close out;
  • Margin: The obligation:

So here’s the thing: As long as margin is regularly collected and paid when due, and as long as you’ve correctly calculated the initial margin you need so that it covers any “gap loss” if your counterparty goes bust — you’re covered. The moment the counterparty misses a margin call, you have a failure to pay. It’s the cleanest event there is. You may have to wait out a grace period of a day or two - but you took initial margin to look after that.