82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Nonetheless, if a counterparty goes insolvent during a trade, the first part of the transaction is fully settled and the administrator is left with a single forward settling transaction under which it is entitled to receive, DVP, an asset against payment of cash or delivery of an asset. | Nonetheless, if a counterparty goes insolvent during a trade, the first part of the transaction is fully settled and the administrator is left with a single forward settling transaction under which it is entitled to receive, DVP, an asset against payment of cash or delivery of an asset. | ||
The | The counterparty’s exposure is the net [[mark-to-market]] of that forward settling trade: where it is a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} its exposure is the [[haircut]] owed by the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} back to it. Where it is a {{gmslaprov|Lender}} the liability is the [[haircut]] you owe back the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}. More — much, much more on this topic where [[Pledge GMSLA]] is concerned. | ||
This is helpful to the netting analysis, which therefore applies only between one stock loan transaction and another (and not within a single stock loan trade). The absence of a netting flag means you cannot offset positive MTMs where you are a {{gmslaprov|Lender}} versus negative [[MTM]]s where you are a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}. | This is helpful to the [[netting]] analysis, which therefore applies only between one stock loan transaction and another (and not within a single stock loan trade). The absence of a netting flag means you cannot offset positive MTMs where you are a {{gmslaprov|Lender}} versus negative [[MTM]]s where you are a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}. | ||
Note the effect that intraday margining has on this under Clause {{gmslaprov|5}} of the {{gmsla}}. | Note the effect that intraday margining has on this under Clause {{gmslaprov|5}} of the {{gmsla}}. |