Hedging Disruption - Equity Derivatives Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*The {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} may only be allowed to terminate any {{eqderivprov|transaction}} ''[[pro rata]]'' with the actual {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}} | *The {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} may only be allowed to terminate any {{eqderivprov|transaction}} ''[[pro rata]]'' with the actual {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}} | ||
{{triplecocktail}} | {{triplecocktail}} | ||
Revision as of 12:00, 2 August 2017
Equity Derivatives Anatomy™
|
Hedging Disruption in a Nutshell™ (Equity Derivatives edition)
- 12.9(a)(v) “Hedging Disruption” means that the Hedging Party cannot reasonably acquire, hold, replace or unwind any transactions hedging its equity price risk, or realise, recover or pay the proceeds of any hedging transactions.
- 12.9(a)(v) “Hedging Disruption” means that the Hedging Party cannot reasonably acquire, hold, replace or unwind any transactions hedging its equity price risk, or realise, recover or pay the proceeds of any hedging transactions.
Why the "why should I pay your hedging costs - I have no control over that" argument is bogus
Because synthetic PB is just cash brokerage done with derivatives and you would totally wear them in a cash trade, is why.In physical brokerage, the client would always pick up that difference.
- The broker owes you best execution. that means it has to interrogate all venues and get you the best possible price.
- Under best execution rules the client is free to instruct the broker to exclude certain venues and brokers.
- The broker will be able to configure its order router to accommodate the client's preferences.
- But excluding a venue impacts the quality of the available execution (whenever that venue had the best price, you’d miss it).
- By not excluding the venue, therefore, you benefit from the venue being present (as long as it doesn’t fail) every order you place.
- Trades settle DVP so the risk is market risk in replacing the trade, not credit risk.
- That said, the market risk could be significant: failure of a venue will heavily impact liquidity and market volatility for a period.
- Asking the broker to underwrite that market loss when a venue does fail while getting the benefit its pricing whenever it does not is asking for a free option on the your own execution risk.
Pernickety amendments
Expect to see some amendments to this clause, chiefly to appease fastidious counsel. For example:
- You may see some tinkering with “transaction(s) or asset(s) it deems necessary to hedge the equity price risk of entering into and performing its obligations with respect to the relevant Transaction” — perhaps to refer to “Hedge Positions” instead of “transaction(s) or asset(s)”[1], and to broaden equity price risk to “market risk (including but not limited to equity price risk, foreign exchange risk and interest rate risk)”
- Some counsel may wish to add to limb (B) “convert into the Settlement Currency” and upgrade “remit the proceeds of and/or collateral posted with respect to any such Hedge Positions”, just in case it might be thought that collateral didn’t count as proceeds of a hedge.
- The Hedging Party may only be allowed to terminate any transaction pro rata with the actual Hedging Disruption