|
|
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| If you had to redeliver the same one, the “transfer of title” is in danger of being [[recharacterised]] into a [[pledge]]/[[loan]], which has a bunch of unwanted knock-on effects. | | If you had to redeliver the same one, the “transfer of title” is in danger of being [[recharacterised]] into a [[pledge]]/[[loan]], which has a bunch of unwanted knock-on effects. |
|
| |
|
| You may come across a couple of instances (in {{tag|OTC Clearing}}/{{tag|CCP}} space) where the {{tag|CSA}} definition of “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” has been modified to capture not just [[fungible]] securities of the same Series/[[ISIN]], but “similar ones” – same issuer but different maturity, and under a different ISIN etc. This is likely to have arisen by way of misapprehension fromthat “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” is already intended to allow redelivery of ''non''-[[fungible]] securities of a similar type, and the modification is only clarificatory. The [[Broker-dealer|broker’s]] funding desk may say, “yeah but what if there’s some illiquidity in the market?” but — well, friend, you have that exact risk across your entire ISDA book, so you’re already long that risk. In practice, if there is a market disruption and you can’t get hold of the necessary collateral, as long as it isn’t coterminous with your own credit deterioration, you should be able to hash it out.
| | {{equivalent vs similar}} |
| | |
| And if you are worried about it, go for a cash-only CSA, or just don’t reuse that asset.
| |
| | |
| Once so explained the funding team generally settles down.
| |
| | |
| Now there may be a need for the “''similar'' securities” concept in the [[OTC to CCP]] space, doubtful, but let’s say — but we should call it something else – perhaps “Similar Credit Support” – to differentiate it from “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” which is still needed in the CSA to support the title transfer analysis.
| |