Template:Credit support amount capsule: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
====No equivalent in the {{2016csa}}==== | ====No equivalent in the {{2016csa}}==== | ||
Careful observers will have noticed there isn't such a concept in the {{2016csa}}. This is because the {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}} is no more than a given party’s {{csaprov|Exposure}} — as already defined in the {{tag|CSA}} — together with any pertinent {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s and similar amounts. Of course, under the {{2016csa}} (being concerned only with [[variation margin]]) there ''are'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s. | Careful observers will have noticed there isn't such a concept in the {{2016csa}}. This is because the {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}} is no more than a given party’s {{csaprov|Exposure}} — as already defined in the {{tag|CSA}} — together with any pertinent {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s and similar amounts. Of course, under the {{2016csa}} (being concerned only with [[variation margin]]) there ''are'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s. {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s traditionally are there to protect counterparties against ''potential'' swings in {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} between margin calls. They are a buffer against ''the risk'' of market moves. But a [[title transfer]] of collateral to cover an {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that doesn’t yet, and might never, exist creates an actual exposure the other way, as the holder of the {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}} is now actually indebted to the {{vmcsaprov|Transferor}} for its return. That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|11}} that lets you build them back in if you want to. And who, in their right chicken-lickeny mind, wouldn’t want to?</ref> So it vanishes, in a puff of logic and existential redundancy. | ||
And what about the {{vmcsaprov|Threshold}}? Well, there shouldn't be one of those either: The thrust of the margin reforms in the different jurisdictions was to require counterparties to collateralise their total mark-to-market exposure, not just most of it, so in a rush of uncharacteristic blood to the head, ISDA did away with the concept altogether. There is usually ''some'' flex in the regulations, and don’t be surprised to see your more tempestuous counterparties hotly insisting on a {{vmcsaprov|Threshold}}, even just a nominal one. <br> | |||
Revision as of 05:30, 28 December 2019
1995 CSA
Under a 1995 CSA Credit Support Amount is the total amount one counterparty must have delivered to the other at any time: The combination of its net Exposure under the ISDA Master Agreement and the net Independent Amounts it must post.
No equivalent in the 2016 VM CSA
Careful observers will have noticed there isn't such a concept in the 2016 VM CSA. This is because the Credit Support Amount is no more than a given party’s Exposure — as already defined in the CSA — together with any pertinent Independent Amounts and similar amounts. Of course, under the 2016 VM CSA (being concerned only with variation margin) there are no Independent Amounts.[1] So it vanishes, in a puff of logic and existential redundancy.
And what about the Threshold? Well, there shouldn't be one of those either: The thrust of the margin reforms in the different jurisdictions was to require counterparties to collateralise their total mark-to-market exposure, not just most of it, so in a rush of uncharacteristic blood to the head, ISDA did away with the concept altogether. There is usually some flex in the regulations, and don’t be surprised to see your more tempestuous counterparties hotly insisting on a Threshold, even just a nominal one.
- ↑ Well, alright, should be no Independent Amounts. Independent Amounts traditionally are there to protect counterparties against potential swings in Exposure between margin calls. They are a buffer against the risk of market moves. But a title transfer of collateral to cover an Exposure that doesn’t yet, and might never, exist creates an actual exposure the other way, as the holder of the Independent Amount is now actually indebted to the Transferor for its return. That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph 11 that lets you build them back in if you want to. And who, in their right chicken-lickeny mind, wouldn’t want to?