82,964
edits
Hedging Disruption - Equity Derivatives Provision: Difference between revisions
Hedging Disruption - Equity Derivatives Provision (view source)
Revision as of 11:59, 2 August 2017
, 2 August 2017no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|eqderiv|12.9(a)(v)||12.9(b)(iii)|}} | {{fullanat2|eqderiv|12.9(a)(v)||12.9(b)(iii)|}} | ||
{{Nuts|Equity Derivatives|Hedging Disruption}} | {{Nuts|Equity Derivatives|Hedging Disruption}} | ||
====Pernickety amendments | |||
===Why the "why should I pay your hedging costs - I have no control over that" argument is bogus=== | |||
Because synthetic PB is just cash brokerage done with derivatives and you would totally wear them in a cash trade, is why.In physical brokerage, the client would ''always'' pick up that difference. | |||
*The [[broker]] owes you [[best execution]]. that means it has to interrogate all venues and get you the best possible price. | |||
*Under [[best execution]] rules the client is free to instruct the broker to exclude certain venues and brokers. | |||
*The broker will be able to configure its [[order router]] to accommodate the client's preferences. | |||
*But excluding a venue impacts the quality of the available execution (whenever that venue had the best price, you’d miss it). | |||
*By not excluding the venue, therefore, you ''benefit'' from the venue being present (as long as it doesn’t fail) every order you place. | |||
*Trades settle [[DVP]] so the risk is market risk in replacing the trade, not credit risk. | |||
*That said, the market risk could be significant: failure of a venue will heavily impact [[liquidity]] and market [[volatility]] for a period. | |||
*Asking the broker to underwrite that market loss when a venue does fail while getting the benefit its pricing whenever it does not is asking for a free option on the your own execution risk. | |||
===Pernickety amendments=== | |||
Expect to see some amendments to this clause, chiefly to appease [[Mediocre lawyer|fastidious counsel]]. For example: | Expect to see some amendments to this clause, chiefly to appease [[Mediocre lawyer|fastidious counsel]]. For example: | ||
* You may see some tinkering with “transaction(s) or asset(s) it deems necessary to hedge the equity price risk of entering into and performing its obligations with respect to the relevant Transaction” — perhaps to refer to “{{eqderivprov|Hedge Positions}}” instead of “transaction(s) or asset(s)”<ref>It is always sad to see an {{tag|ISDA}} drafting committee pass up the opportunity to use [[and/or]], by the way.</ref>, and to broaden equity price risk to “market risk ([[including but not limited to]] equity price risk, [[foreign exchange]] risk and [[interest rate]] risk)” | * You may see some tinkering with “transaction(s) or asset(s) it deems necessary to hedge the equity price risk of entering into and performing its obligations with respect to the relevant Transaction” — perhaps to refer to “{{eqderivprov|Hedge Positions}}” instead of “transaction(s) or asset(s)”<ref>It is always sad to see an {{tag|ISDA}} drafting committee pass up the opportunity to use [[and/or]], by the way.</ref>, and to broaden equity price risk to “market risk ([[including but not limited to]] equity price risk, [[foreign exchange]] risk and [[interest rate]] risk)” | ||