Template:Derivatives as specified indebtedness: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "====Derivatives as {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}==== Be wary of including derivatives in the definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}}, no matter how high th...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====[[Derivatives]] as {{ | ====[[Derivatives]] as {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}}==== | ||
Be wary of including derivatives in the definition of {{ | Be wary of including [[derivatives]] or other non-debt-like money payment obligations in the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}}, no matter how high a {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}. We would say ''never'' do it, but the wise minds of the [[credit department]] may well be beyond your calming influence, so you may not have a choice. But if you have a choice, don’t do it. | ||
In its unadulterated formulation, {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} aggregates up all {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-level defaults, so even though a single {{isdama}} would be unlikely to have a ''net'' [[out-of-the-money]] [[MTM]] of anywhere near the {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}, a large number of individual {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} [[MTM]]s, if aggregated, may — particularly if you’re selective about which {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s you’re counting — ''which {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} entitles you to be''. | |||
Thus, where you have a large number of small failures, you can still have a big problem. This is why | Thus, where you have a large number of small failures, you can still have a big problem. (This is why [[bank]]s should also [[carve out]] [[deposit]]s: [[Operational error|operational failure]] or regulatory action can create an immediate problem). | ||
Now it is true that you | Now it is true that you can require the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} of a [[master trading agreement]] to be calculated by reference to its net close-out amount, but this only really points up the imbalance between buy-side and sell-side. Sure, fund managers may have fifty or even a hundred {{isdama}}s, but they will be split across dozens of different funds., each a different entity with its own {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}. [[Broker dealer|Broker-dealer]]s, on the other hand, will have literally ''hundreds of thousands of [[master agreement]]s, all facing the same legal entity''. Credit dudes: ''you are the wrong side of this risk, fellas''. | ||
O tempora. O [[paradox]]. | Now seeing as most [[master trading agreement]]s are fully collateralised, and so don’t represent material [[indebtedness]] on a netted basis anyway, it may be that even with hundreds of thousands of the blighters, no-one’s {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}} will ever be seriously threatened. But if no {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}} is ever at risk from an {{isdama}}, then ''why are you including the {{isdama}} in {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} in the first place?'' | ||
O tempora. O [[paradox]]. <br> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:53, 3 November 2020
Derivatives as {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}}
Be wary of including derivatives or other non-debt-like money payment obligations in the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}}, no matter how high a {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}. We would say never do it, but the wise minds of the credit department may well be beyond your calming influence, so you may not have a choice. But if you have a choice, don’t do it.
In its unadulterated formulation, {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} aggregates up all {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-level defaults, so even though a single ISDA Master Agreement would be unlikely to have a net out-of-the-money MTM of anywhere near the {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}, a large number of individual {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} MTMs, if aggregated, may — particularly if you’re selective about which {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s you’re counting — which {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} entitles you to be.
Thus, where you have a large number of small failures, you can still have a big problem. (This is why banks should also carve out deposits: operational failure or regulatory action can create an immediate problem).
Now it is true that you can require the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} of a master trading agreement to be calculated by reference to its net close-out amount, but this only really points up the imbalance between buy-side and sell-side. Sure, fund managers may have fifty or even a hundred ISDA Master Agreements, but they will be split across dozens of different funds., each a different entity with its own {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}}. Broker-dealers, on the other hand, will have literally hundreds of thousands of master agreements, all facing the same legal entity. Credit dudes: you are the wrong side of this risk, fellas.
Now seeing as most master trading agreements are fully collateralised, and so don’t represent material indebtedness on a netted basis anyway, it may be that even with hundreds of thousands of the blighters, no-one’s {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}} will ever be seriously threatened. But if no {{{{{1}}}|Threshold Amount}} is ever at risk from an ISDA Master Agreement, then why are you including the ISDA Master Agreement in {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} in the first place?
O tempora. O paradox.