83,357
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:*This is problematic because of the accretive nature of the threshold: A single technical or operational failure may mean one is technically in default on payments which, if aggregated, could quickly exceed even a large threshold (especially in a heavily traded derivative master agreement). | :*This is problematic because of the accretive nature of the threshold: A single technical or operational failure may mean one is technically in default on payments which, if aggregated, could quickly exceed even a large threshold (especially in a heavily traded derivative master agreement). | ||
*Not, in the case of banks, excluding [[deposit|retail deposits]], where operational failure or even governmental action (like a moratorium or currency controls) could lead to technical default on a large amount of indebtedness. (Bank deposits are a form of indebtedness, and will almost certainly be a significant source of indebtedness for any trading bank). | *Not, in the case of banks, excluding [[deposit|retail deposits]], where operational failure or even governmental action (like a moratorium or currency controls) could lead to technical default on a large amount of indebtedness. (Bank deposits are a form of indebtedness, and will almost certainly be a significant source of indebtedness for any trading bank). | ||
*Adding in [[grace period]]s or other preconditions, excuses, permission to skip PE class and so on, before a party | *Adding in [[grace period]]s or other preconditions, excuses, permission to skip PE class and so on, before a party may invoke a [[cross default]]; | ||
*Arguing the toss about [[threshold amount]]s (should it be shareholders funds or cash? or both? lower or higher of? Is my threshold higher than yours? Is it too big? Is it too small? Does my {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} look big in this? Honestly it is so tedious). | *Arguing the toss about [[threshold amount]]s (should it be shareholders funds or cash? or both? lower or higher of? Is my threshold higher than yours? Is it too big? Is it too small? Does my {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} look big in this? Honestly it is so tedious). | ||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Cross default is potentially a very damaging clause, as this picture to the right amply illustrates. Or would do, if there were a picture to the right. To the extent it doesn't: | Cross default is potentially a very damaging clause, as this picture to the right amply illustrates. Or would do, if there were a picture to the right. To the extent it doesn't: | ||
===Cross | ===Cross default=== | ||
A cross default right effectively imports into the [[ISDA]] all the default termination rights under any {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} owed by a party: | |||
*It | *It dramatically (and indeterminately) widens the definition of {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}. | ||
* | *It entitles a [[Counterparty]] to [[cross accelerate|accelerate]] the {{tag|ISDA}} whether or not the {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} itself has been accelerated. | ||
*Depending on the market value of the | *Depending on the market value of the {{isdaprov|transaction}}s under the ISDA it may cause an immediate capital outflow (though is less likely to in these days of compulsory variation margin). | ||
===Specified Indebtedness=== | ==={{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}=== | ||
{{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} means, generally, any [[borrowed money|borrowings]] that, in aggregate, exceed a designated {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}. Because of the aggregation right, even comparatively trivial agreements can trigger the provision where they are relatively homogenous and affected by the same local circumstances (for example, [[retail deposit]]s). A low {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}, therefore, presents three challenges: | {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} means, generally, any [[borrowed money|borrowings]] that, in aggregate, exceed a designated {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}. Because of the aggregation right, even comparatively trivial agreements can trigger the provision where they are relatively homogenous and affected by the same local circumstances (for example, [[retail deposit]]s). A low {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}, therefore, presents three challenges: | ||
*It allows a more varied (and difficult to monitor) range of potential termination rights, because a greater number of agreements will qualify as {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}. | *It allows a more varied (and difficult to monitor) range of potential termination rights, because a greater number of agreements will qualify as {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}. | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*Note that [[repo]] is not considered {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}: see [[borrowed money]]. But don’t let your inner anal retentive amending the definition in your {{isdaprov|Schedule}} so that it is (even though [[repo]] is more properly dealt with by {{isdaprov|DUST}}). | *Note that [[repo]] is not considered {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}: see [[borrowed money]]. But don’t let your inner anal retentive amending the definition in your {{isdaprov|Schedule}} so that it is (even though [[repo]] is more properly dealt with by {{isdaprov|DUST}}). | ||
===Derivatives as Specified Indebtedness=== | ===[[Derivatives]] as {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}=== | ||
Be wary of including derivatives in the definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}, no matter how hight the {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} (we would say ''never'' do it, but realistically this sort of thing is controlled by “wise senior heads” in the [[credit department]] whose minds will be well beyond the calming influence of most jobbing negotiators, so you may well be stuck with it). | |||
The {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} language aggregates up all individual defaults, so even though a single ISDA would be unlikely to have a ''net'' out-of-the-money [[MTM]] of anything like 3% of shareholders’ funds, a large number of individual transactions if aggregated may, particularly if you’re selective about which transactions you’re counting — which the cross default language entitles you to be. | |||
Thus, where you have a number of small failures, you can still | Thus, where you have a large number of small failures, you can still have a big problem. This is why we don’t include deposits: operational failure or regulatory action in one jurisdiction can create an immediate problem. | ||
The same could well be true for derivatives. Individual net [[MTM]]s under derivative [[ISDA Master Agreement|Master Agreement]]s can be very large. We have a lot of Master Agreements (18000+). | The same could well be true for derivatives. Individual net [[MTM]]s under derivative [[ISDA Master Agreement|Master Agreement]]s can be very large. We have a lot of Master Agreements (18000+). |