Loss of Stock Borrow - Equity Derivatives Provision: Difference between revisions

But see also  {{eqderivprov|12.9(b)(vii)}} which deals with the tension between {{eqderivprov|LOSB}} and {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}}.

'''Summary''': Where the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} can't locate a stock borrow, the {{eqderivprov|Non-Hedging Party}} has the option to source one that is struck at less than the {{eqderivprov|Maximum Stock Loan Rate}} within two {{eqderivprov|Scheduled Trading Days}}, failing which the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} can terminate the {{eqderivprov|Transaction}}. Where {{eqderivprov|LOSB}} and {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}} both apply and the same event could qualify as either, it will hbe treated as a {{eqderivprov|LOSB}} (which has milder consequences for the affected party).

'''Compare and contrast''' with {{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Stock Borrow}}. There is a logical handoff and interaction between the two.

*If the cost of a stock borrow exceeds the {{eqderivprov|Maximum Stock Loan Rate}} it is deemed to be (as good as) impossible to borrow stock, so it is treated as a {{eqderivprov|Loss of Stock Borrow}}, not merely an {{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Stock Borrow}}. If a counterparty wants to apply Increased Cost of Stock Borrow whatever the cost of an available bid, the answer is to disapply {{eqderivprov|Maximum Stock Loan Rate}} altogether. This means that ''any'' possible stock borrow rate, however astronomical, comes under {{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Stock Borrow}}, and {{eqderivprov|Loss of Stock Borrow}} (which is slightly more onerous a termination right) only applies where there are no offers in the market at all.