Template:Crmtechniques: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[CRM technique]]s are broken down as follows:
[[CRM technique]]s under the {{tag|basel}} framework are broken down as follows:
*'''[[Title transfer collateral arrangement|Collateralised transactions]]''': A bank has a [[credit exposure]] which it hedges<ref>This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though this is a curious way of describing it</ref> [[in whole or in part]] by {{csaprov|collateral}} posted by a counterparty or a [[credit support provider]].
*'''[[Title transfer collateral arrangement|Collateralised transactions]]''': A bank has a [[credit exposure]] which it hedges<ref>This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it</ref> [[in whole or in part]] by {{csaprov|collateral}} posted by a counterparty or a [[credit support provider]].
 
*'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values.
*'''On-[[balance sheet]] {{tag|netting}}''': Legally enforceable [[close-out netting]] arrangements covering multiple transactions with offsetting [[mark-to-market]] values.
*'''{{tag|Guarantee}}s and [[credit derivative]]s''': {{tag|Guarantees}} provided by third parties (whose [[credit risk]] isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or {{tag|credit derivative}} transactions.
*'''{{tag|Guarantee}}s and [[credit derivative]]s''': {{tag|Guarantees}} provided by third parties (whose [[credit risk]] isn't materially correlated to the counterparty’s) or {{tag|credit derivative}} transactions.



Revision as of 11:31, 9 November 2016

CRM techniques under the basel framework are broken down as follows:

An Important point

Note the difference between techniques which mitigate a credit risk that you nonetheless have — as above — and those which negate the credit exposure in the first place. So, par example, a title-transfer collateral arrangement whereby a bank transfers outright collateral to a counterparty may, as part of a valid netting agreement, mitigate that collateral but will leave you with an exposure to any excess collateral or haircut; however transfer under a pledged collateral arrangement — at least to the exent that you don't surrender legal title to the collateral at all — will leave you with no counterparty credit exposure at all to the haircut or excess, seeing as it is yours, and if the counterparty goes bust, you will be entitled to have it returned in full.

  1. This is what it says, and I suppose it is true, even though “hedging” is a curious way of describing it