Capital Requirements Regulation: Difference between revisions

Capital Requirements Regulation (view source)

Revision as of 13:00, 3 December 2014

15 bytes added , 3 December 2014

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Under Chapter 6, the exposure value can be determined by using an internal model, assuming that the firm has regulatory approval for the use of such a model (Art. {{crrprov|273(2)}} of {{tag|CRR}}) or by one of the methods set out in that Chapter.
 {{crrsnap|273(2)}}
-*Although not expressly stated in relation to stock loans, these apply certain methodologies to particular “contracts” or “transactions”.
+Although not expressly stated in relation to stock loans, these apply certain methodologies to particular “contracts” or “transactions”.
-**A securities lending transaction is, both legally and economically a single transaction and is treated as such under {{tag|CRR}} (see, for example, Art. {{crrprov|92(3)(f)}}).
+A securities lending transaction is, both legally and economically a single transaction and is treated as such under {{tag|CRR}} (see, for example, Art. {{crrprov|92(3)(f)}}).
-*Where the conditions referred to in Art. {{crrprov|206}} of {{tag|CRR}} are satisfied, [[netting]] arrangements are recognised.
+{{crrsnap|92(3)(f)}}
+Where the conditions referred to in Art. {{crrprov|206}} of {{tag|CRR}} are satisfied, [[netting]] arrangements are recognised.
 {{crrsnap|206}}
-**However, if those conditions are not satisfied, the exposure is calculated without giving effect to any close-out netting agreement that may exists, i.e. each transaction is treated individually.
+However, if those conditions are not satisfied, the exposure is calculated without giving effect to any close-out netting agreement that may exists, i.e. each transaction is treated individually.
-*This is to be expected because netting arrangements are only recognised if they are legally enforceable. If they are not, the counterparties may have a gross exposure to each other due to the fact that an insolvency official may be able to “cherry pick” between individual transactions, i.e. disclaim unprofitable transactions while enforcing profitable ones.
+This is to be expected because netting arrangements are only recognised if they are legally enforceable. If they are not, the counterparties may have a gross exposure to each other due to the fact that an insolvency official may be able to “cherry pick” between individual transactions, i.e. disclaim unprofitable transactions while enforcing profitable ones.
 **It would be very unusual for an insolvency official to be able to cherry pick individual rights and obligations within a single transaction. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which this is possible and certainly it is not possible under English law.