Template:Repo - FWMD: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fwmdtt|nickname= |title=[[ ]]|tagline=|documentation= ( | {{fwmdtt|nickname=Repo|title=[[Global Master Repurchase Agreement]]|tagline=|documentation=Standard 2000 GMRA. Vague where it needs to be and not heavily negotiated. (5)|booklets=Nope. (1)|customisability=Well, you can have fun doing a [[stock loan]] under a [[repo]] master and vice versa if you must but otherwise, no, very standard. (3)|asset classes=Bonds, cash. Equities at a stretch. (3)|amendability=Bilateral, so yes, in theory — but would you, unless MiFID changed and you had to? (4)|transferability=Niente. Bilateral contract. You could Novate, but really why would you? (2)|tenor=Short - typically no more than a month. But at least it ''has'' a tenor. So better than a [[stock loan]].(3)|leverage=Fully collateralised, so nope. (1)|collateral= Yes. (6)|longevity=Repos have been around for ages and they'll be around for ages. (10)|frightometer=Sorry: not going to get hearts racing. (1)}} | ||
Revision as of 17:58, 29 October 2019
| [[File:{{{image}}}|frameless|2000px|center]] |
| Docs | Standard 2000 GMRA. Vague where it needs to be and not heavily negotiated. (5) | {{{docscore}}} |
| Amendability | Bilateral, so yes, in theory — but would you, unless MiFID changed and you had to? (4) | {{{amendscore}}} |
| Collateral | Yes. (6) | {{{collateralscore}}} |
| Transferability | Niente. Bilateral contract. You could Novate, but really why would you? (2) | {{{transferscore}}} |
| Leverage | Fully collateralised, so nope. (1) | {{{leveragescore}}} |
| Fright-o-meter | Sorry: not going to get hearts racing. (1) | {{{frightscore}}} |