83,240
edits
Template:Cross default in securities financing agreements: Difference between revisions
Template:Cross default in securities financing agreements (view source)
Revision as of 14:36, 7 June 2019
, 7 June 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===There is no cross default in a securities financing transaction=== | ===There is no [[cross default]] in a securities financing transaction=== | ||
There’s no need for [[cross default]] in ''any'' [[master trading agreement]], actually — this is the [[JC]]’s considered view, about which you can read at length elsewhere — but the {{gmsla}} and {{gmra}} are a particularly bad candidates for cross default because their transactions are by definition short term (in the case of {{gmra}}) and on call (in the case of {{gmsla}}), so the “mischief” the [[cross default]] is designed to remedy — large [[credit exposure]] under transactions with long tenor and few regular cash-flows — does not exist. | There’s no need for [[cross default]] in ''any'' [[master trading agreement]], actually — this is the [[JC]]’s considered view, about which you can read at length elsewhere — but the {{gmsla}} and {{gmra}} are a particularly bad candidates for cross default because their transactions are by definition short term (in the case of {{gmra}}) and on call (in the case of {{gmsla}}), so the “mischief” the [[cross default]] is designed to remedy — large [[credit exposure]] under transactions with long tenor and few regular cash-flows — does not exist. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===There’s no need to put one in. Even if you are doing [[term loan|term loans]].=== | ===There’s no need to put one in. Even if you are doing [[term loan|term loans]].=== | ||
All the talk of borrowers and lenders in [[Securities financing transaction - SFTR Provision|securities financing transactions]] makes a certain sort of person giddy. But remember: [[SFTR|SFTs]] are ''not'' contracts of indebtedness. {{gmslaprov|Lender}}s aren’t — legally or economically — [[lender|lenders]]. Thus, the omission of [[cross default]] from the standard [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFT]] agreements ''was not | All the talk of borrowers and lenders in [[Securities financing transaction - SFTR Provision|securities financing transactions]] makes a certain sort of person giddy. But remember: [[SFTR|SFTs]] are ''not'' contracts of [[indebtedness]]. {{gmslaprov|Lender}}s aren’t — legally or economically — [[lender|lenders]]. Thus, the omission of [[cross default]] from the standard [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFT]] agreements ''was not a mistake''. It was deliberate. | ||
Now, there is a certain stripe of [[credit officer]] who will not be convinced of this, [[Cassanova’s advice|and will want to put one in anyway]]. Does it do any harm? Well ''yes'', actually: it creates [[contingent liquidity]] issues for your own treasury department, whom credit will routinely ignore when making their credit requests. And yes, from the perspective of production waste in the [[negotiation]] process: insisting on a cross default is, par excellence, the [[waste]] of {{wasteprov|over-processing}}. | Now, there is a certain stripe of [[credit officer]] who will not be convinced of this, [[Cassanova’s advice|and will want to put one in anyway]]. Does it do any harm? Well ''yes'', actually: it creates [[contingent liquidity]] issues for your own treasury department, whom credit will routinely ignore when making their credit requests. And yes, from the perspective of production waste in the [[negotiation]] process: insisting on a cross default is, par excellence, the [[waste]] of {{wasteprov|over-processing}}. | ||