Delivery Amount - VM CSA Provision
2016 ISDA Credit Support Annex (VM) (English law)
Paragraph 2(a) in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Paragraph 2(a)
|
Content and comparisons
Now the interesting thing here is the difference that pledged collateral under the 2016 NY Law VM CSA makes over title-transferred collateral regime of the 2016 VM CSA. You will see the difference in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA’s Delivery Amount, which is the positive difference between Secured Party’s Exposure and the value of Posted Credit Support held by the Secured Party — easy, right? — and 2016 VM CSA’s equivalent provision which is the positive difference between the Transferee’s Exposure and the Credit Support Balance adjusted to exclude any inflight but unsettled collateral movements.
The 2016 VM CSA is a bit more leaden in how it describes things but these amount to the same thing: you don’t get any credit (support) for collateral until it has landed with the other party. This creates some curious scenarios, as you will see if you read on. 3(a) — 2(a)
Summary
Calculating Delivery Amounts and Return Amounts
Differences between 1995 CSA and 2016 VM CSA
Note that under a 2016 VM CSA there is no Independent Amount or Threshold, so there is no need for a Credit Support Amount (which is Exposure adjusted by applicable Independent Amounts and Thresholds) — everything keys off the plain old Exposure.
Unless, that is, you have retrofitted your 2016 VM CSA to include Independent Amounts. The below assumes you have done that. Because some genius in your credit department will have decided this is really important. If you haven’t, it is a bit easier: just substitute “Credit Support Amount” for “Exposure”. For more on this stimulating topic, see Credit Support Amount (VM/IA).
Delivery Amounts
First: work out your Credit Support Amount. This is:
- Transferee’s Exposure + Net Independent Amounts (IF ANY)[1]
Second: calculate the Value of the Transferor’s Credit Support Balance. This is basically the prevailing value of the Eligible Credit Support (and income on it) that the Transferor has ponied up at that time.
Third: Deduct the Credit Support Balance from the Credit Support Amount.
Fourth: If the difference from the sum you did in (3):
- is less than zero, KEEP QUIET. If you are lucky, the other guy won’t ask you for a Return Amount.
- is more than zero but less than the Minimum Transfer Amount, also KEEP QUIET. No Delivery Amount for you today, because you haven’t exceeded the Minimum Transfer Amount, so you are not entitled to one.
- is more than the Minimum Transfer Amount you can demand the whole amount (I.e., not just the bit over the MTA).
Return Amounts
Basically the converse of a Delivery Amount. In this case you deduct the Credit Support Amount from the Credit Support Balance.
What about in-flight Credit Support deliveries?
So yesterday you met a margin call by delivering a bond the standard settlement cycle for which means it won’t arrive till the day after tomorrow. How is this “in-flight collateral” treated for today’s margin call?
It’s treated as if you have already made it. This is the significance of the parenthetical:
“(adjusted to include any prior Delivery Amount and to exclude any prior Return Amount, the transfer of which, in either case, has not yet been completed and for which the relevant Settlement Day falls on or after such Valuation Date).”
However, if your counterparty fails in the meantime (before the bond has settled, and assuming ultimately it never does), it would count as an Unpaid Amount which would factor into your close-out calculation.
At first, this seems odd, but the risk is a time value risk associated with the collateral, not a counterparty risk per se. You accepted it when you agreed to Eligible Credit Support with a long settlement cycle in the first place. If you don’t want that time-value risk, don’t agree to collateral with a long settlement cycle.
Picturesque speech
Bonus learning for free: In arithmetic, a sum being subtracted is the “subtrahend” and the sum it is being subtracted from is the “minuend”.
See also
References
- ↑ In the 2016 VM CSA there really shouldn’t be IA as it kind of defeats the regulatory goal of marking actual exposures to market, but there may be, since ISDA caved and retrofitted the 2016 VM CSA with a an Independent Amount section