Template:Csa Interest Payment summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Some development from the OG to the 2016 ISDA VM CSA that came about when ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, bless them, contrived in Para 5(c)(ii) to design an option no-one in their right mind would have wanted, namely to choose between Interest Transfer — in which you can have interest that accrues on your Credit Support Balances periodically paid to you — or Interest Amount, in which interest accruals are added to the Credit Support Balance, effectively folding al..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
To be fair to them, the OG only contemplated transfer of accrued interest, which in the context of a modern, daily margined swap business, is barking mad, so at least having the option to just capitalise interest is better than not having it. | To be fair to them, the OG only contemplated transfer of accrued interest, which in the context of a modern, daily margined swap business, is barking mad, so at least having the option to just capitalise interest is better than not having it. | ||
But better still would be just straight out capitalising interest, with no option to transfer it. Perhaps this is just me. | But better still would be just straight out capitalising interest, with no option to transfer it. Perhaps this is just me. | ||
=====Interest Amounts under the 1995 CSA===== | |||
It really ought to be quite simple, and in the {{csa}} it is: if a {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}} has posted [[cash]] — probably less likely back in the day, but in the world of [[regulatory margin]], ''de rigueur'' nowadays — then you get [[interest]] on it — as long as paying interest wouldn’t, in itself, trigger a call for a further {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} by the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}} — thus precipitating a (short) game of operational ping-pong between the two parties’ back office teams. | |||
How would that happen? [[All other things being equal|All other things staying equal]], it couldn’t: if the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} and the {{{{{1}}}|Value}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} stayed the same as it was when [[variation margin]] was last called, the arrival of interest on any part of that {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} increases its value and, since it was calibrated to equal an exposure exactly, ought to be spirited back to the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}: the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}} otherwise would become indebted for the value of that interest to the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}, which for variation margin is not the idea. | |||
But as we know, {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}}s ''don’t'' just quietly sit there. If they did, there wouldn’t be any need for initial margin, and collecting even [[variation margin]] would be less fraught. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} has increased, the arrival of that interest might serve to fill a hole in the existing coverage, in which case, why pay it away only to ask for it back again? | |||
=====Interest Amounts under the 2016 VM CSA===== | |||
But in the {{vmcsa}} things get a little more complex. There follows an excruciating torture session for innocent and well-loved members of Her Majesty’s vocabulary, and all to get across a simple point. In the {{premium}} nutshell JC has tried to simplify the drafting but I am a bit jet-lagged and it is testing even my patience. But know this: {{{{{1}}}|Interest Payment}} is a fiddly, time-and resource-consuming pain which will inevitably lead to error, confusion and name-calling. {{{{{1}}}|Interest Adjustment}} — just adding accrued interest to your {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} — is far simpler and more elegant: none of this Kafkaesque complexity for netting and offsetting individual payments. It all comes out in the wash. | |||
=====When you might want Interest Payment===== | |||
Now there ''is'' a “use-case” for the Interest Payment method — it’s pretty niche, though — which we will talk about over at the premium JC. | |||
Latest revision as of 15:17, 8 May 2024
To be fair to them, the OG only contemplated transfer of accrued interest, which in the context of a modern, daily margined swap business, is barking mad, so at least having the option to just capitalise interest is better than not having it.
But better still would be just straight out capitalising interest, with no option to transfer it. Perhaps this is just me.
Interest Amounts under the 1995 CSA
It really ought to be quite simple, and in the 1995 CSA it is: if a {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}} has posted cash — probably less likely back in the day, but in the world of regulatory margin, de rigueur nowadays — then you get interest on it — as long as paying interest wouldn’t, in itself, trigger a call for a further {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} by the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}} — thus precipitating a (short) game of operational ping-pong between the two parties’ back office teams.
How would that happen? All other things staying equal, it couldn’t: if the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} and the {{{{{1}}}|Value}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} stayed the same as it was when variation margin was last called, the arrival of interest on any part of that {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} increases its value and, since it was calibrated to equal an exposure exactly, ought to be spirited back to the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}: the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}} otherwise would become indebted for the value of that interest to the {{{{{1}}}|Transferor}}, which for variation margin is not the idea.
But as we know, {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}}s don’t just quietly sit there. If they did, there wouldn’t be any need for initial margin, and collecting even variation margin would be less fraught. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Transferee}}’s {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} has increased, the arrival of that interest might serve to fill a hole in the existing coverage, in which case, why pay it away only to ask for it back again?
Interest Amounts under the 2016 VM CSA
But in the 2016 VM CSA things get a little more complex. There follows an excruciating torture session for innocent and well-loved members of Her Majesty’s vocabulary, and all to get across a simple point. In the premium content nutshell JC has tried to simplify the drafting but I am a bit jet-lagged and it is testing even my patience. But know this: {{{{{1}}}|Interest Payment}} is a fiddly, time-and resource-consuming pain which will inevitably lead to error, confusion and name-calling. {{{{{1}}}|Interest Adjustment}} — just adding accrued interest to your {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} — is far simpler and more elegant: none of this Kafkaesque complexity for netting and offsetting individual payments. It all comes out in the wash.
When you might want Interest Payment
Now there is a “use-case” for the Interest Payment method — it’s pretty niche, though — which we will talk about over at the premium JC.