|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Calculating {{{{{1}}}prov|Delivery Amount}}s and {{{{{1}}}prov|Return Amount}}s===
| |
| ====Differences between {{csa}} and {{vmcsa}}====
| |
| Note that under a {{vmcsa}} there is no {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} or {{csaprov|Threshold}}, so there is no need for a {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}} (which is {{csaprov|Exposure}} adjusted by applicable {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s and {{csaprov|Threshold}}s) — everything keys off the plain old {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}}.
| |
|
| |
|
| Unless, that is, you have retrofitted your {{vmcsa}} to include {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s. The below assumes you ''have'' done that. Because some genius in your [[credit department]] will have decided this is really important. If you ''haven’t'', it is a bit easier: just substitute “{{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}}” for “{{vmcsaprov|Exposure}}”. For more on this stimulating topic, see {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Amount (VM/IA)}}.
| |
| ===={{{{{1}}}prov|Delivery Amount}}s====
| |
| '''First''': work out your '''{{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Amount}}'''. This is: <br>
| |
| :''{{{{{1}}}prov|Transferee}}’s {{{{{1}}}prov|Exposure}} + Net {{{{{1}}}prov|Independent Amount}}s (IF ANY)<ref>In the {{2016csa}} there really shouldn’t be {{tag|IA}} as it kind of defeats the regulatory goal of marking actual exposures to market, but there may be, since ISDA caved and retrofitted the {{2016csa}} with a an {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}} section</ref>'' <br>
| |
| '''Second''': calculate the {{{{{1}}}prov|Value}} of the {{{{{1}}}prov|Transferor}}’s {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Balance}}. This is basically the prevailing value of the {{{{{1}}}prov|Eligible Credit Support}} (and income on it) that the {{{{{1}}}prov|Transferor}} has ponied up at that time. <br>
| |
| '''Third''': Deduct the {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Balance}} from the {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Amount}}.
| |
| '''Fourth''': If the difference from the sum you did in (3):
| |
| :is ''less'' than zero, KEEP QUIET. If you are lucky, the other guy won’t ask ''you'' for a {{{{{1}}}prov|Return Amount}}.
| |
| :is ''more'' than zero but ''less'' than the {{{{{1}}}prov|Minimum Transfer Amount}}, also KEEP QUIET. No {{{{{1}}}prov|Delivery Amount}} for you today, because you haven’t exceeded the {{{{{1}}}prov|Minimum Transfer Amount}}, so you are not entitled to one.
| |
| :is ''more'' than the {{{{{1}}}prov|Minimum Transfer Amount}} you can demand the ''whole'' amount (I.e., not just the bit over the {{{{{1}}}prov|MTA}}).
| |
| ===={{{{{1}}}prov|Return Amount}}s====
| |
| Basically the converse of a {{{{{1}}}prov|Delivery Amount}}. In this case you deduct the {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Amount}} from the {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support Balance}}.
| |
| ====What about in-flight {{{{{1}}}prov|Credit Support}} deliveries?====
| |
| So yesterday you met a [[margin call]] by delivering a [[bond]] the standard [[settlement cycle]] for which means it won’t arrive till the day after tomorrow. How is this “in-flight collateral” treated for the purpose of today’s [[margin call]]? It’s treated as having already been made. However, if your [[counterparty]] fails in the meantime (before the [[bond]] has settled, and assuming ultimately it never does), it would count as an {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}} which would factor into your [[Close-out Amount - ISDA Provision|close-out calculation]].
| |
|
| |
| At first blush, this seems an odd result, but the risk is a time value risk associated with the collateral, not a counterparty risk per se. You accepted it when you agreed to {{{{{1}}}prov|Eligible Credit Support}} with a long a [[settlement cycle]] in the first place. If you don’t want that time-value risk, don’t agree to collateral with a long [[settlement cycle]].
| |
|
| |
| ====Picturesque speech====
| |
| ''Bonus learning for free: In arithmetic, a sum being ''subtracted'' is the “[[subtrahend]]” and the sum it is being subtracted from is the “[[minuend]]”.'' <br>
| |