Template:Credit support amount capsule: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=====No {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s===== | =====No {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s===== | ||
Life is much simpler in the world of regulatory [[variation margin]] for which the {{2016csa}} is designed. Its only concern is [[variation margin]]. That is, there ''are'' no {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s. {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s are there to protect counterparties against ''potential'' swings in {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that might happen before the next margin call: that is, 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: the {{csaprov|Transferee}} of an {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} would be indebted to the {{csaprov|Transferor}} for its return. | Life is much simpler in the world of regulatory [[variation margin]] for which the {{2016csa}} is designed. Its only concern is [[variation margin]]. That is, there ''are'' no {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s.</ref> {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s are there to protect counterparties against ''potential'' swings in {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that might happen before the next margin call: that is, 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: the {{csaprov|Transferee}} of an {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} would be indebted to the {{csaprov|Transferor}} for its return. | ||
That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|11}} that lets you build an {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} concept back in if you want one. And who, in their right [[chicken-licken]]y mind, wouldn’t want one? | That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|11}}<ref>For more information see {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount (VM/IA)}}.</ref> that lets you build an {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} concept back in if you want one. And who, in their right [[chicken-licken]]y mind, wouldn’t want one? | ||
=====No {{csaprov|Threshold}} either===== | =====No {{csaprov|Threshold}} either===== | ||
Revision as of 03:36, 31 December 2019
1995 CSA
Under a 1995 CSA the Credit Support Amount is the total amount one counterparty must have delivered to the other at any time: the combination of the Exposure to that party and the net Independent Amounts it must post, minus any agreed Threshold.
No equivalent in the 2016 VM CSA
There is no concept of a Credit Support Amount in the 2016 VM CSA because the Credit Support Amount a party may require is no more than its Exposure to the other party — as already defined in the 2016 VM CSA. In the old 1995 CSA one had to consider any pertinent Independent Amounts and the agreed Threshold.
No Independent Amounts
Life is much simpler in the world of regulatory variation margin for which the 2016 VM CSA is designed. Its only concern is variation margin. That is, there are no Independent Amounts.[1] Independent Amounts are there to protect counterparties against potential swings in Exposure that might happen before the next margin call: that is, 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: the Transferee of an Independent Amount would be indebted to the Transferor for its return.
That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph 11[2] that lets you build an Independent Amount concept back in if you want one. And who, in their right chicken-lickeny mind, wouldn’t want one?
No Threshold either
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.
So the Credit Support Amount vanishes, in a puff of logic and existential redundancy.
- ↑ Well, alright, should be no Independent Amounts.
- ↑ For more information see Credit Support Amount (VM/IA).