Template:Crmtechniques: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{anat|crr}}
[[CRM technique]]s under the [[Standardised Approach to Credit Risk|Basel]] [https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca04.pfd Standardised Approach to Credit Risk] framework are  broken down as follows:
[[CRM technique]]s under the [[Standardised Approach to Credit Risk|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]]. (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>.
*'''[[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 agreement|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]] [[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.
*'''[[Guarantee]]s and [[credit derivative]]s''': [[Guarantee]]s provided by third parties (whose [[credit risk]] isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or [[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.
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.


===Credit risk ''mitigation'' against exposure ''negation'' ===
Note the difference between [[CRM technique|techniques]] which mitigate a credit risk that you nonetheless have — as above — and those which negate the [[credit exposure]] in the first place.


{{Box|
So, ''par example'':
===An Important point ===
*A [[title-transfer collateral arrangement]] whereby a bank transfers [[collateral]] to a counterparty outright may, as part of  a valid [[netting]] agreement, mitigate that collateral but it will leave an exposure for the return of any [[excess collateral]] should the MTM move (or any margin [[haircut]]); however
Note the difference between [[CRM technique|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 [[pledged collateral arrangement]] — at least [[to the exent]] that the bank doesn’t surrender legal title<ref>Do not get me started on [[rehypothecation]].</ref> to the collateral at all — will<ref>Assuming you get the legals right...</ref> leave the bank with ''no'' counterparty [[credit exposure]] at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it remains the bank’s, and if the counterparty goes [[bust]], the bank does not have to claim it from the counterparty’s insolvent estate.
*a [[title-transfer collateral arrangement]] whereby a bank transfers {{tag|collateral}} to a counterparty outright may, as part of  a valid [[netting]] agreement, mitigate that collateral but will leave the bank with an exposure for the return of any [[excess collateral]] or [[haircut]]; however
*transfer under a [[pledged collateral arrangement]] — at least [[to the exent]] that the bank doesn’t surrender legal title<ref>Do not get me started on [[rehypothecation]].</ref> to the collateral at all — will leave the bank with no counterparty {{tag|credit exposure}} at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it is the bank’s, and if the counterparty goes [[bust]], the bank will be entitled to have it returned in full.
}}
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024

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.

Credit risk mitigation against exposure negation

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:

  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.
  3. ↑ Do not get me started on rehypothecation.
  4. ↑ Assuming you get the legals right...
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Crmtechniques&oldid=88287"