Template:Cross default in securities financing agreements: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:


===There’s no need to put one in. Even if you are doing [[term loan|term loans]].===
===There’s no need to put one in. Even if you are doing [[term loan|term loans]].===
To be clear: the omission of [[cross default]] from the standard [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFT]] agreements ''was not an error''. It was deliberate. There is a certain stripe of [[Credit Officer]] who is not convinced of this, however, and may want to put one in. Does it do any harm? Well yes, actually: it creates [[contingent liquidity]] issues for your own treasury people, whom credit will routinely ignore when making their credit requests. And yes, from the perspective of production waste in the negotiation process: insisting on a cross default is, par excellence, the [[waste]] of {{wastearticle|over-processing}}.
To be clear: the omission of [[cross default]] from the standard [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFT]] agreements ''was not an error''. It was deliberate. There is a certain stripe of [[Credit Officer]] who is not convinced of this, however, and may want to put one in. Does it do any harm? Well yes, actually: it creates [[contingent liquidity]] issues for your own treasury people, whom credit will routinely ignore when making their credit requests. And yes, from the perspective of production waste in the negotiation process: insisting on a cross default is, par excellence, the [[waste]] of {{waste|over-processing}}.


Why not put one in for good measure? [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFTRs]] are collateralised daily, so:
Why not put one in for good measure? [[SFT - SFTR Provision|SFTRs]] are collateralised daily, so: