Change in Law - Commodity Definitions Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Hedging Disruption - Commodities Provision to Hedging Disruption - Commodity Definitions Provision |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 13:26, 18 January 2023
2005 ISDA Commodity Definitions
Section Hedging Disruption in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Section Hedging Disruption
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
The 2005 ISDA Commodity Definitions do not have a definition of Hedging Disruption, but it is common enough to invent one, butchering the equivalent provision from the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions.
Summary
You might have cause to regret that should you be hedging a commodity derivative transaction with futures when the regulator changes, or imposes, position limits on those futures. We could imagine the sort of language you see in the panel being useful if so.
One subtlety: because position limits apply to a trading book, or even across all trading books in a group, it is possible for the Change in Law to be entirely unrelated to the specific hedge for the transaction. This is the reason for the Hedging Party’s discretion to determine which assets are counted towards the limit.
Indexes are complicated
Note that this wouldn’t necessarily capture activity where the breach of position limits is caused by a change in option delta inside an existing index to which the business has exposure, as might happen where an index rebalances:
Example: say we have:
- A number of small delta 1 trades referencing WTI Crude
- A large net option delta on the index is large (i.e. we are long a large notional on the index)
- We are hedging all these trades with WTI Crude futures such that across the whole book we are close to our position limit for WTI Crude.
- If the index then rebalances to weight more heavily in favour of crude
Here our implied hedging position may take us over our crude position limits, without there having been any active event to have precipitated this. Commodities futures roll monthly, so it isn’t as if we can grandfather the existing hedges.
There’s no “change in law”, as there’s been no change in the regulatory environment. It is only a Change in Law if the provision allows it to “be within the sole and absolute discretion of the Hedging Party to determine which of the relevant assets or transactions are counted towards such limit” (i.e. the option delta of any given trade is below the position limit). It may be an increased cost of hedging, because there are ways of hedging the risk – through derivatives which therefore using up someone else’s position limits, and that cost can fairly be attributed pro-rata across the whole book.
See also
- Triple cocktail - Equities
- Hedging Disruption - Equities
- Change in Law - Equities
References
On the topic of Commodities Index hedging disruption – nuanced because of the presence of regulator- or exchange-imposed position limits – the below language handles the position limits issue quite well:
One subtlety: because position limits apply to a trading book, or even across all trading books in a group, it is possible for the hedging disruption to be entirely unrelated to the specific hedge for the transaction. This is the reason for the Hedging Party’s discretion to determine which assets are counted towards the limit.
Note that this wouldn’t necessarily capture activity where the breach of position limits is caused by a change in option delta inside an existing index to which the business has exposure, as might happen where an index rebalances:
Example: say we have: - A number of small delta 1 trades referencing WTI Crude - A large net option delta on the S&P GSCI is large (i.e. we are long a large notional on the GSCI) - We are hedging all these trades with WTI Crude futures such that across the whole book we are close to our position limit for WTI Crude. - If the GSCI then rebalances to weight more heavily in favour of crude
Here our implied hedging position may take us over our Crude position limits, without there having been any active event to have precipitated this. Commodities futures roll monthly, so it isn’t as if we can grandfather the existing hedges. There’s no “change in law”, as there’s been no change in the regulatory environment it is only a hedging disruption if the provision allows it to “be within the sole and absolute discretion of the Hedging Party to determine which of the relevant assets or transactions are counted towards such limit” (i.e. the option delta of any given trade is below the position limit) it may be an increased cost of hedging, because there are ways of hedging the risk – through derivatives which therefore using up someone else’s position limits, and that cost can fairly be attributed pro-rata across the whole book.
See also
- Triple cocktail - Equities
- Triple cocktail - Commodities
Resources
ISDA Resources: 2005 ISDA Commodity Definitions (article) | [UPLOAD DEFINITIONS] (preprint) |
Section Navigation: Table of Contents | 1 Certain General Definitions | 2 Parties - 2.1 - 2.2 | 3 Term and Dates - 3.1 - 3.2 - 3.3 - 3.4 - 3.5 - 3.6 - 3.7| 4 Certain Definitions Relating to Payments - 4.1 - 4.2 - 4.3 - 4.4 | 5 Fixed Amounts- 5.1 - 5.2 | 6 Floating Amounts - 6.1 - 6.2 | 7 Calculation of Prices for Commodity Reference Prices - 7.1 - 7.2 - 7.3 - 7.4 - 7.5 - 7.6 | 8 Commodity Options - 8.1 - 8.2 - 8.3 - 8.4 - 8.5 - 8.6 - 8.7 - 8.8 | 9 Rounding - 9.1 | 10 Bullion Transactions | 11 Weather Derivative Index Transactions | 12 Physically-Settled European Gas Transactions | 13 Physically-Settled North American Gas Transactions' | 14 - Physically-Settled North American Power Transactions | 15 - Physically-Settled GTMA Transactions | 16 - EU Emissions Allowance Transactions | 17 - Freight Transactions