82,853
edits
Disputed Calculations or Valuations - CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Disputed Calculations or Valuations - CSA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 10:00, 12 December 2016
, 12 December 2016→{{isdaprov|Transaction}} {{csaprov|Exposure}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a [[Coach & Horses|coach and horses]] through the carefully constructed {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} language on which the [[broker]] counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it? | So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a [[Coach & Horses|coach and horses]] through the carefully constructed {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} language on which the [[broker]] counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it? | ||
It may seem so, but in practice no. Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party {{isdaprov|Reference Market-Makers}} will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out. It depends on the better angels of a {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}’s nature — neigh, ''four'' of the blighters — in providing firm | It may seem so, but in practice no. | ||
*Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party {{isdaprov|Reference Market-Makers}} will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out. | |||
*It depends on the better angels of a {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}’s nature — neigh, those of ''four'' of the blighters — in providing [[firm quotation]]s to be dissected, arithmetically averaged and arranged for the delight of all. But a moment’s reflection should tell you that {{isdaprov|Reference Market-maker}}s don’t ''have'' a better nature. They are certain not to provide a quote, which brings them no benefit (they can’t get a trade out of it) and saddles them with risk — albeit only the [[Chicken Licken]] sort of risk that [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] like to busy themselves, namely the fear that one’s well-meaning [[bad faith]]<ref>I ''know'' this is a contradiction in terms.</ref> or [[negligence]] has somehow caused compensable harm to the interests of another market participant<ref>The best defence to such an action, if you were wondering, is not to act in bad faith and to be competent in what you do. But that’s as may be: [[Chicken Licken]] is really only the excuse one wheels out for not wasting time doing something for which you get no benefit.</ref>. | |||
So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a ''relationship'', and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a [[good egg]] are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour. | So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a ''relationship'', and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a [[good egg]] are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour. | ||