Template:Credit support amount capsule: Difference between revisions

Template:Credit support amount capsule (view source)

Revision as of 03:29, 31 December 2019

113 bytes added , 31 December 2019

→‎No equivalent in the {{2016csa}}

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ====No equivalent in the {{2016csa}}====
-Careful observers will have noticed there isn't such a concept in the {{2016csa}}. This is because the {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}} a party may require was no more than its {{csaprov|Exposure}} to the opther party — as already defined in the {{tag|CSA}} — plus any pertinent {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s due from the other party and less any agreed {{csaprov|Threshold}}. Life is much simpler in the world of regulatory variation margin envisaged by the {{2016csa}}, concerned as it is only with [[variation margin]]. That is, there ''are'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s. {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s traditionally are there to protect counterparties against ''potential'' swings in {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} between margin calls. They are a buffer against ''the risk'' of market moves. But a [[title transfer]] of collateral to cover an {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that doesn’t yet, and might never, exist creates an actual exposure the other way, as the holder of the {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}} is now actually indebted to the {{vmcsaprov|Transferor}} for its return. That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|11}} that lets you build them back in if you want to. And who, in their right chicken-lickeny mind, wouldn’t want to?</ref>
+There is no concept of a {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Amount}} in the {{2016csa}} because the {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Amount}} a party may require is no more than its {{csaprov|Exposure}} to the other party — as already defined in the {{vmcsa}}. In the old {{csa}} one had to consider any pertinent {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s and the agreed {{csaprov|Threshold}}.
+=====No {{csaprov|Independent Amount}}s=====
+Life is much simpler in the world of regulatory [[variation margin]] for which the {{2016csa}} is designed. Its only concern is  [[variation margin]]. That is, there ''are'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s.<ref>Well, alright, ''should be'' no {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s. {{vmcsaprov|Independent Amount}}s are there to protect counterparties against ''potential'' swings in {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that might happen before the next margin call: that is, they are a buffer against ''the risk'' of market moves. But a [[title transfer]] of collateral to cover an {{vmcsaprov|Exposure}} that doesn’t yet, and might never, exist creates an ''actual'' exposure the other way: the {{csaprov|Transferee}} of an {{csaprov|Independent Amount}} would be indebted to the {{csaprov|Transferor}} for its return.
+That said, there is a custom-built addition in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|11}} that lets you build them back in if you want to. And who, in their right [[chicken-licken]]y mind, wouldn’t want to?</ref>
+=====No {{csaprov|Threshold}} either=====
 And what about the {{vmcsaprov|Threshold}}? Well, there shouldn’t be one of those either: The thrust of the margin reforms in the different jurisdictions was to require counterparties to collateralise their total mark-to-market exposure, not just most of it, so in a rush of uncharacteristic blood to the head, ISDA did away with the concept altogether. There is usually ''some'' flex in the regulations, and don’t be surprised to see your more tempestuous counterparties hotly insisting on a {{vmcsaprov|Threshold}}, even just a nominal one. <br>
 So the {{csaprov|Credit Support Amount}} vanishes, in a puff of logic and existential redundancy. <br>