Template:Crmtechniques: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[CRM technique]]s under the {{tag|Basel}} framework are broken down as follows: | [[CRM technique]]s under the {{tag|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]]. | *'''[[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]]. | ||
*'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values. | *'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values. | ||
Revision as of 15:05, 9 November 2016
CRM techniques under the Basel Standardised Approach to Credit Risk framework are broken down as follows:
- Collateralised transactions: A bank has a credit exposure which it hedges[1] in whole or in part by collateral posted by a counterparty or a credit support provider.
- On-balance sheet netting: Legally enforceable close-out netting arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting mark-to-market values.
- Guarantees and credit derivatives: Guarantees provided by third parties (whose credit risk isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or credit derivative transactions.
An Important point
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, a title-transfer collateral arrangement whereby a bank transfers outright collateral to a counterparty may, as part of a valid netting agreement, mitigate that collateral but will leave you with an exposure to any excess collateral or haircut; however transfer under a pledged collateral arrangement — at least to the exent that you don't surrender legal title to the collateral at all — will leave you with no counterparty credit exposure at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it is yours, and if the counterparty goes bust, you will be entitled to have it returned in full.
- ↑ This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it