Disputed Calculations or Valuations - CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a [[Coach & Horses|coach and horses]] through the carefully constructed {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} language on which the [[broker]] counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it? | So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a [[Coach & Horses|coach and horses]] through the carefully constructed {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} language on which the [[broker]] counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it? | ||
It may seem so, but in practice no. Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party {{isdaprov|Reference Market-Makers}} will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out. It depends on the better angels of a {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}’s nature — neigh, ''four'' of the blighters — in providing firm | It may seem so, but in practice no. | ||
*Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party {{isdaprov|Reference Market-Makers}} will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out. | |||
*It depends on the better angels of a {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}’s nature — neigh, those of ''four'' of the blighters — in providing [[firm quotation]]s to be dissected, arithmetically averaged and arranged for the delight of all. But a moment’s reflection should tell you that {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}s don’t ''have'' a better nature. They are certain not to provide a quote, which brings them no benefit (they can’t get a trade out of it) and saddles them with risk — albeit only the [[Chicken Licken]] sort of risk that [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] like to busy themselves, namely the fear that one’s well-meaning [[bad faith]]<ref>I ''know'' this is a contradiction in terms.</ref> or [[negligence]] has somehow caused compensable harm to the interests of another market participant<ref>The best defence to such an action, if you were wondering, is not to act in bad faith and to be competent in what you do. But that’s as may be: [[Chicken Licken]] is really only the excuse one wheels out for not wasting time doing something for which you get no benefit.</ref>. | |||
So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a ''relationship'', and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a [[good egg]] are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour. | So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a ''relationship'', and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a [[good egg]] are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour. |
Revision as of 10:00, 12 December 2016
The actual wording is in the info box lower down on the right-hand side, but you may find it easier to read the nutshell summary, since in its 2016 version CSA ISDA not only passed up the opportunity to make this unused-in-practice language simpler, but bloody-mindedly made it worse, by providing anally-retentive alternatives for 2002 ISDA and 1992 ISDA close-out methodologies. Which is just spectacular.
1995 CSA in a Nutshell™ (4(a) edition)
4(a) Disputed Calculations or Valuations. If a Disputing Party disputes any collateral call (the Value of either the Exposure or the Credit Support being transferred):
- it must give notice by close of business on the following Local Business Day:
- it must transfer any undisputed amount by close of business on the following Settlement Day;
- the parties will try resolve the dispute. If by the Resolution Time they haven’t:
- Disputes as to Exposure: the Valuation Agent will recalculate any disputed Exposure as of the Recalculation Date by averaging the mid-market quotations from those Reference Market-makers who will provide one (if none will, the Valuation Agent’s original calculations will stand); and calculating the outstanding Credit Support Balance as per Paragraph 11(e)(ii);
- Disputes as to Credit Support Value: recalculating the Value as of the date of transfer.
The Valuation Agent will notify each party by the Notification Time on the Local Business Day following the Resolution Time. Then the appropriate transfer has to be made.
Disputed Calculations or Valuations is a topic that could unfurl like the flower of a deadly insect-eating nightshade if you let it. DON’T LET IT.
CSA Anatomy™
4(a) Disputed Calculations or Valuations. If a party (a “Disputing Party”) reasonably disputes (I) the Valuation Agent’s calculation of a Delivery Amount or a Return Amount or (II) the Value of any transfer of Eligible Credit Support or Equivalent Credit Support, then:
Following a recalculation pursuant to this Paragraph, the Valuation Agent will notify each party (or the other party, if the Valuation Agent is a party) as soon as possible but in any event not later than the Notification Time on the Local Business Day following the Resolution Time. The appropriate party will, upon demand following such notice given by the Valuation Agent or a resolution pursuant to (3) above and subject to Paragraph 3(a), make the appropriate transfer. 4(a) Disputed Calculations or Valuations. If a party (a “Disputing Party”) reasonably disputes (I) the Valuation Agent’s calculation of a Delivery Amount (VM) or a Return Amount (VM) or (II) the Value of any transfer of Eligible Credit Support (VM) or Equivalent Credit Support (VM), then:
Following a recalculation pursuant to this Paragraph, the Valuation Agent will notify each party (or the other party, if the Valuation Agent is a party) as soon as possible but in any event not later than the Notification Time on the Local Business Day following the Resolution Time. The appropriate party will, upon demand following such notice given by the Valuation Agent or a resolution pursuant to (3) above and subject to Paragraph 3(a), make the appropriate transfer.
|
What can be disputed?
The dispute can be as to one of two things:
- The Value of posted (or to-be-transferred) Eligible Credit Support; or
- The Transaction Value (when calculating Exposure).
Value of Credit Support
Let's take the easy one first: Eligible Credit Support. If you are a smart sort of fellow who has moved onto a cash-only single-currency 2016 VM CSA then there’s not really much to argue about. What is the Value, in the Base Currency, of an amount in the Base Currency?[1]
Transaction Exposure
The Transaction Exposure has — potentially — a different complexion. While some asset classes (FX, synthetic equity) are pretty observable and, in the same way, there is not much to argue about, others are not. The less liquid a transaction is, the less likely the broker is to refuse any dispute rights when carrying out its Calculation Agent function under the ISDA.
So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a coach and horses through the carefully constructed Calculation Agent language on which the broker counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it?
It may seem so, but in practice no.
- Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party Reference Market-Makers will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out.
- It depends on the better angels of a Reference Market-maker’s nature — neigh, those of four of the blighters — in providing firm quotations to be dissected, arithmetically averaged and arranged for the delight of all. But a moment’s reflection should tell you that Reference Market-makers don’t have a better nature. They are certain not to provide a quote, which brings them no benefit (they can’t get a trade out of it) and saddles them with risk — albeit only the Chicken Licken sort of risk that assiduous attorneys like to busy themselves, namely the fear that one’s well-meaning bad faith[2] or negligence has somehow caused compensable harm to the interests of another market participant[3].
So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a relationship, and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a good egg are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour.
Of course, none of these mitigants gives much scope for legal intercession, so a good lawyer tends to cast aspersions on them. [to be continued]
References
- ↑ Hint: it’s a trick question.
- ↑ I know this is a contradiction in terms.
- ↑ The best defence to such an action, if you were wondering, is not to act in bad faith and to be competent in what you do. But that’s as may be: Chicken Licken is really only the excuse one wheels out for not wasting time doing something for which you get no benefit.