Template:Set-off and netting: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
So if one of my [[master agreement]]s has a broad [[set-off]] provision (as well as its [[close-out netting]] provision), and my [[netting opinion]] says the set off (of amounts due under other master agreements) would also be enforceable, can I then treat all my exposures against that counterparty, across all master agreements, as nettable down to a single obligation?
So if one of my [[master agreement]]s has a broad [[set-off]] provision (as well as its [[close-out netting]] provision), and my [[netting opinion]] says the set off (of amounts due under other master agreements) would also be enforceable, can I then treat all my exposures against that counterparty, across all master agreements, as nettable down to a single obligation?


Sorry to be the bearer of the buzzkill, but no. You need a “written, bilateral netting agreement that creates a single legal obligation, covering all included bilateral master agreements and transactions” (a “[[cross product netting arrangement]]”), itself supported by a [[netting opinion]]. See Rule CRE53.61-9 of the [[Basel framework]]<ref>https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/53.htm</ref> This might be, for example, a jopint-association [[Cross-Product Master Agreement]] - and most [[prime brokerage agreement]]s do this too.
Sorry to be the bearer of the buzzkill, but no. You need a “written, bilateral netting agreement that creates a single legal obligation, covering all included bilateral master agreements and transactions” (a “[[cross product netting arrangement]]”), itself supported by a [[netting opinion]]. See Rule CRE53.61-9 of the [[Basel framework]]<ref>https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/53.htm</ref> This might be, for example, the joint-association-published [[Cross-Product Master Agreement]] - and most [[prime brokerage agreement]]s do this too.


But also check whether your own firm’s operational systems are capable of recognising cross-product netting arrangements. From personal experience, the [[JC]] suspects many aren’t.
But even if you have got a [[master netting agreement]], also check whether your own firm’s operational systems are capable of recognising cross-product netting arrangements as a practical matter. From personal experience, the [[JC]] suspects many aren’t. If the computers can’t do it, your [[CPMA]] and your [[netting opinion]]s are as good as a chocolate starfish. <br>

Revision as of 09:39, 13 December 2019

The difference between close-out netting and set-off

  • Close-out netting, in the learned words of Allen & Overy, is a contractual process comprising early termination, valuation and determination of a net balance. This last step may involve a contractual set-off but, saucily, the considered view of ISDA’s counsel for England and Wales is that the net effect of the agreement is to arrive a a net balance without the good offices of contractual set-off[1] According to the UNIDROIT[2], close-out netting resembles the classical insolvency set-off, but is purportedly wider: general set-off requires mutual debts that are already due, while close-out netting envisages the netting of obligations that are not yet due.[3] Thus, set-off is narrower that close-out netting.
  • Set-off is a legal principle permitting (or requiring) a debtor to discharge its debt by setting off a cross-claim owed to the debtor against the debt. There are various legal bases for set-off, including, under English law, equitable set-off, set-off in judicial proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules, statutory set-off under the Insolvency Rules 1986 upon a winding upon administration and contractual set-off.

If a master agreement allows set-off, can I net down across master agreements?

So if one of my master agreements has a broad set-off provision (as well as its close-out netting provision), and my netting opinion says the set off (of amounts due under other master agreements) would also be enforceable, can I then treat all my exposures against that counterparty, across all master agreements, as nettable down to a single obligation?

Sorry to be the bearer of the buzzkill, but no. You need a “written, bilateral netting agreement that creates a single legal obligation, covering all included bilateral master agreements and transactions” (a “cross product netting arrangement”), itself supported by a netting opinion. See Rule CRE53.61-9 of the Basel framework[4] This might be, for example, the joint-association-published Cross-Product Master Agreement - and most prime brokerage agreements do this too.

But even if you have got a master netting agreement, also check whether your own firm’s operational systems are capable of recognising cross-product netting arrangements as a practical matter. From personal experience, the JC suspects many aren’t. If the computers can’t do it, your CPMA and your netting opinions are as good as a chocolate starfish.

  1. ↑ Sigh - except where there are unpaid amounts payable under Section 2(a)(i). You knew there’d be some kind of qualification though, didn’t you.
  2. ↑ [https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/capital-markets/netting “Principles on the operation of close-out netting provisions”
  3. ↑ The ISDA Master Agreement achieves this by accelerating them, mind.
  4. ↑ https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/53.htm
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Set-off_and_netting&oldid=35497"