Netting of Payments - ISDA Provision
|
then those obligations will be satisfied and replaced by an obligation on the party owing the larger amount to pay the difference. The parties may net payments across multiple specified Transactions by applying “Multiple Transaction Payment Netting” (and clause 2(c)(ii) will therefore not apply).
Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements may apply to different groups of Transactions, will apply separately to each pairing of specified Offices and will take effect as agreed between the parties.
by each party to the other, then, on such date, each party’s obligation to make payment of any such amount will be automatically satisfied and discharged and, if the aggregate amount that would otherwise have been payable by one party exceeds the aggregate amount that would otherwise have been payable by the other party, replaced by an obligation upon the party by which the larger aggregate amount would have been payable to pay to the other party the excess of the larger aggregate amount over the smaller aggregate amount. The parties may elect in respect of two or more Transactions that a net amount and payment obligation will be determined in respect of all amounts payable on the same date in the same currency in respect of those Transactions, regardless of whether such amounts are payable in respect of the same Transaction. The election may be made in the Schedule or any Confirmation by specifying that “Multiple Transaction Payment Netting” applies to the Transactions identified as being subject to the election (in which case clause 2(c)(ii) above will not apply to such Transactions). If Multiple Transaction Payment Netting is applicable to Transactions, it will apply to those Transactions with effect from the starting date specified in the Schedule or such Confirmation, or, if a starting date is not specified in the Schedule or such Confirmation, the starting date otherwise agreed by the parties in writing. This election may be made separately for different groups of Transactions and will apply separately to each pairing of Offices through which the parties make and receive payments or deliveries.
|
Settlement netting, not close-out netting
Section 2(c) is about “settlement” or “payment” netting — that is, the operational settlement of offsetting payments due on any day under the normal operation of the Agreement — and not the more drastic close-out netting, which is the Early Termination of all Transactions under Section 6.
If you want close-out netting, see here:
I mean, what is the point?
Our chief contrarian wonders what on earth the point of this section is, since settlement netting is a factual operational process for performing existing legal obligations, rather than any kind of variation of the parties’ rights and obligations. If you owe me ten pounds and I owe you ten pounds, and we agree to both keep our tenners, what cause of action arises? What loss is there? We have settled our existing obligations in different way.
To be sure, if I pay you your tenner and you don’t pay me mine, that’s a different story — but then there is no settlement netting at all. The only time one would wish to enforce settlement netting it must, ipso facto, have actually happened, so what do you think you’re going to court to enforce?
So, friends, this rather convoluted passage in that mighty industry standard is, as G. K. Chesterton once said - merely piss and wind.
Multiple Transaction Payment Netting
“Multiple Transaction Payment Netting” is a defined term introduced in the 2002 ISDA in place of the more clunky 1992 ISDA language set out in Section 2(c).
In the 1992 ISDA, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must disapply Section 2(c)(ii). Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies in respect of the same Transaction).
That is partly why, in the 2002 ISDA they introduced the more intuitive Multiple Transaction Payment Netting concept. So now you can say "Multiple Transaction Payment Netting does (or does not) apply".
Good on them, eh? Of course the one person who is going to have no clue about how transaction netting works at an operational level is your ISDA negotiator. Seeing as. (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t need to be in the contract, and your ISDA negotiator will care not one row of buttons whether or not Multiple Transaction Payment Netting applies, you might think to put something diffident like “The parties will agree any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter.”
Relevance of Section 6 to the peacetime operation of the Credit Support Annex
The calculation of {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} under the CSA is modelled on the Section 6(e)(ii) termination methodology following a Termination Event where there is one Affected Party, which in turn tracks the Section 6(e)(i) methodology following an Event of Default, only taking mid-market valuations and not those on the Non-Defaulting Party’s side.
This means you calculate the {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} as:
- (a) the Close-out Amounts for each Terminated Transaction plus
- (b) Unpaid Amounts due to the Non-defaulting Party; minus
- (c) Unpaid Amounts due to the Defaulting Party.
There aren’t really likely, in peacetime, to be Unpaid Amounts loafing about — an amount that you are due to pay today or tomorrow wouldn’t, yet, qualify as “unpaid”, but would be factored into the Close-out Amount calculation.
There is a little bit of a dissonance here, since “{{{{{1}}}|Exposure}}” is a snapshot calculation that treats all future cashflows, whether due in a day, a month or a year from today, the same way: it discounts them back to today, adds them up and sets them off. Your {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} or {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}}, as the case may be, is just the difference between that Exposure and whatever the existing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is. The future is the future: unknowable, unpredictable, but discountable, whether it happens in a day or a thousand years.
All the same, this can seem kind of weird when your CSA you have to pay him an amount today when he owes you an even bigger amount tomorrow. It’s like, “hang on: why am I paying you margin when, tomorrow, you are going to be in the hole to me? Like, by double, if I pay you this margin and you fail to me tomorrow.”
The thing which, I think, causes all the confusion is the dates and amounts of payments under normal Transactions are deterministic, anticipatable, and specified in the Confirmation, whereas whether one is required under a CSA on any day, and how much it will be, depend on things you only usually find out about at the last minute. CSA payments are due “a regular settlement cycle after they are called” — loosey goosey, right? — (or even same day if you are under a VMV CSA and you are on the ball with your calls) whereas normal swap payments are due (say) “on the 15th of March”
So, a scenario to illustrate:
- Day 1: Party A has an {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} — is out of the money — to the tune of 100. Its prevailing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is 90, so (let’s say, for fun, after the {{{{{1}}}|Notification Time}} on the {{{{{1}}}|Demand Date}}) Party B has called it for a {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} of a further 10, which it must pay, but not until tomorrow.
- Day 2: Meanwhile, Party A has a Transaction payment of 10 that falls due to Party B, also tomorrow. The arrival of this payment will change Party A’s Exposure to Party B so it is 90. Assuming Party A also pays the Delivery Amount, by knock-off time tomorrow it will have posted a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} of 100, and its Exposure to Party B will only be 90. This means it will be entitled to call Party B for a {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}} of 10.
This seems rather a waste of operational effort, and will also take years off your credit officer’s life and may even cause his hair to catch fire. Can Party A just not pay the further Delivery Acount in anticipation of what will happen tomorrow?
Fun times in the world of collateral operations.
Transaction flows and collateral flows
In a fully margined ISDA Master Agreement, all other things being equal, the termination of a Transaction will lead to two equal and opposite effects:
- A final payment or exchange under the Transaction having a value more or less equal to the present value of that Transaction;
- A offsetting change in the Exposure under the CSA in exactly the same value.
The strict sequence of these payments ought to be that the Transaction termination payment goes first, and the collateral return follows, since it can only really be calculated and called once the termination payment has been made.
I know what you’re thinking. Hang on! that means the termination payer pays knowing this will increase its Exposure for the couple of days it will take for that collateral return to find its way back. That’s stupid!
What with the regulators’ obsession minimise systemic counterparty credit risk, wouldn’t it be better to apply some kind of settlement netting in anticipation, to keep the credit exposure down?
Now, dear reader, have you learned nothing? It might be better, but “better” is not how ISDA documentation rolls. The theory of the ISDA and CSA settlement flows puts the Transaction payment egg before the variation margin chicken so, at the moment, Transaction flows and collateral flows tend to be handled by different operations teams, and their systems don’t talk. Currently, the payer of a terminating transaction has its heart in its mouth for a day or so.
Industry efforts to date have been targeting at shortening the period between the Exposure calculation and the final payment of the collateral transfer.