Credit Support Obligations - VM CSA Provision

2016 VM CSA Anatomy™ →Go uptown In a Nutshell™ Section 2: 2 Credit Support Obligations 2(a) Delivery Amount. If the Transferee demands a Delivery Amount at least equal to the Transferor’s Minimum Transfer Amount on (or following) a Valuation Date, the Transferor must transfer Eligible Credit Support with a Value of the Delivery Amount (rounded under Paragraph 11(c)(vi)(B)) to the Transferee. The “Delivery Amount” is the amount by which the Transferee’s Exposure exceeds the Value of the Transferor’s Credit Support Balance on that Valuation Date (adjusted for pending but unsettled transfers). 2(b) Return Amount. If the Transferor demands a Return Amount at least equalling the Transferee’s Minimum Transfer Amount on a Valuation Date, the Transferee must transfer the specified Equivalent Credit Support (VM) with a Value of the Return Amount (VM) (rounded under Paragraph 11(c)(vi)(B)) to the Transferee and the Credit Support Balance (VM) will be proportionately reduced. The “Return Amount (VM)” is the amount by which the Value of the Transferor’s Credit Support Balance (VM) (adjusted for pending but unsettled transfers) exceeds the Transferee’s Exposure. view template 2016 VM CSA full text of Section 2: Paragraph 2. Credit Support Obligations 2(a) Delivery Amount (VM). Subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4, upon a demand made by the Transferee on or promptly following a Valuation Date, if the Delivery Amount (VM) for that Valuation Date equals or exceeds the Transferor’s Minimum Transfer Amount, then the Transferor will transfer to the Transferee Eligible Credit Support (VM) having a Value as of the date of transfer at least equal to the applicable Delivery Amount (VM) (rounded pursuant to Paragraph 11(c)(vi)(B)). Unless otherwise specified in Paragraph 11(c), the “Delivery Amount (VM)” applicable to the Transferor for any Valuation Date will equal the amount by which: (i) the Transferee’s Exposure exceeds (ii) the Value as of that Valuation Date of the Transferor’s Credit Support Balance (VM) (adjusted to include any prior Delivery Amount (VM) and to exclude any prior Return Amount (VM) , the transfer of which, in either case, has not yet been completed and for which the relevant Regular Settlement Day falls on or after such Valuation Date). 2(b) Return Amount (VM). Subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4, upon a demand made by the Transferor on or promptly following a Valuation Date, if the Return Amount (VM) for that Valuation Date equals or exceeds the Transferee’s Minimum Transfer Amount, then the Transferee will transfer to the Transferor Equivalent Credit Support (VM) specified by the Transferor in that demand having a Value as of the date of transfer as close as practicable to the applicable Return Amount (VM) (rounded pursuant to Paragraph 11(c)(vi)(B)) and the Credit Support Balance (VM) will, upon such transfer, be reduced accordingly. Unless otherwise specified in Paragraph 11(c)(i)(B), the “Return Amount (VM)” applicable to the Transferee for any Valuation Date will equal the amount by which: (i) the Value as of that Valuation Date of the Transferor’s Credit Support Balance (VM) (adjusted to include any prior Delivery Amount (VM) and to exclude any prior Return Amount (VM), the transfer of which, in either case, has not yet been completed and for which the relevant Regular Settlement Day falls on or after such Valuation Date) exceeds (ii) the Transferee’s Exposure. view template Related Agreements Click here for the text of Section 2 in the 1995 English Law CSA Click here for the text of Section 2 in the 2016 English Law VM CSA Click [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|here]] for the text of the equivalent, Section [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|{{{3}}}]] in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA Comparisons 1995 CSA and 2016 VM CSA: click for comparison {{nycsadiff {{{3}}}}} Resources Full wikitext | Nutshell wikitext Navigation 1 (Interpretation) | 2 (Credit Support Obligations) | 3 (Transfers, Calculations and Exchanges) | 4 (Dispute Resolution) | 5 (Title Transfer etc) | 6 (Default) | 7 (Representation) | 8 (Expenses) | 9 (Miscellaneous) | 10 (Definitions) | 11 (Elections and Variables) Index: Click ᐅ to expand: 2016 VM CSA 2018 CSD 1995 CSA Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Here is a comparison between the 1995 and the 2016 versions. The key difference: No Credit Support Amount. Instead, it just references the Counterparty’s Exposure.

Ok, so where is the Credit Support Amount?

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. In the old 1995 CSA, Independent Amounts were 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 in the old world, Independent Amounts were transferred outright to the Transferee, by title transfer. This created a conceptual issue for regulators, who were trying to minimise credit exposure between the parties: a title transfer of collateral to cover an Exposure that doesn’t yet — and might never — exist creates a negative exposure, because the holder of an Independent Amount would be indebted to the Transferor for its return.

All that said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph 11 that lets you build an Independent Amount concept back in if you really want one. And who, in their right chicken-lickeny mind, wouldn’t?

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.