Template:Exposure under csa: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Relevance of Section {{isdaprov|6}} to the peacetime operation of the {{csa}}===
===Relevance of Section {{isdaprov|6}} to the peacetime operation of the Credit Support Annex===
The calculation of {{csaprov|Exposure}} under the {{csa}} is modelled on the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}} termination methodology following a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} where there is one {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, which in turn tracks the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}} methodology following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, only taking [[mid-market valuation]]s and not those on the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}}’s side.
The calculation of {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} under the CSA is modelled on the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}} termination methodology following a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} where there is one {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, which in turn tracks the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}} methodology following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, only taking [[mid-market]] valuations and not those on the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}}’s side.


This means you calculate the {{csaprov|Exposure}} as:
This means you calculate the {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} as:
::(a) the {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s for each {{isdaprov|Terminated Transaction}} '''plus''' <br>
:(a) the {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s for each {{isdaprov|Terminated Transaction}} '''plus''' <br>
::(b) {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} due to the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}; '''minus''' <br>
:(b) {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} due to the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}; '''minus''' <br>
::(c) {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} due to the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}.<br>
:(c) {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} due to the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}.<br>


This is interesting because, as of its {{isdadefsprov|Termination Date|2006}} the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} may be no more, but until those final exchanges are settled the obligations they represent — “{{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s” in the argot of Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} — still exist and are included in the calculation of the {{csaprov|Exposure}}.
There aren’t really likely, in peacetime, to be {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} loafing about — an amount that you are due to pay ''today'' or ''tomorrow'' wouldn’t, ''yet'', qualify as “unpaid”, but would be factored into the {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} calculation.  


Now, on the day you are meant to make that final settlement, which when (ahem — ''if'') settled, would reduce your {{csaprov|Exposure}}, you will call for your {{csaprov|Delivery Amount}} or {{csaprov|Return Amount}} assuming it has not (yet) been paid. By the time the Credit Support adjustment has been settled, that final settlement will have happened, meaning the person who paid the adjustment will be out of pocket, and will need to call it back (using the same process).
There is a little bit of a dissonance here, since “{{{{{1}}}|Exposure}}” is a snapshot calculation that treats all future cashflows, whether due in a day, a month or a year from today, the same way: it discounts them back to today, adds them up and sets them off. Your {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} or {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}}, [[as the case may be]], is just the difference between that Exposure and whatever the existing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is. The [[future]] is the future: unknowable, unpredictable, but ''discountable'', whether it happens in a day or a thousand years.
 
All the same, this ''can'' seem kind of weird when your CSA ''you'' have to pay ''him'' an amount today when ''he'' owes ''you'' an even bigger amount tomorrow. It’s like, “hang on: why am I paying you margin when, tomorrow, ''you'' are going to be in the hole to ''me''? Like, by ''double'', if I pay you this margin and you fail to me tomorrow.”
 
The thing which, I think, causes all the confusion is the dates and amounts of payments under ''normal'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s are deterministic, anticipatable, and specified in the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}, whereas whether one is required under a CSA on any day, and how much it will be, depend on things you only usually find out about at the last minute. CSA payments are due “a regular [[settlement cycle]] after they are called” — loosey goosey, right? — (or even same day if you are under a VMV CSA and you are on the ball with your calls) whereas normal swap payments are due (say) “on the 15th of March”
 
So, a scenario to illustrate:
 
*''Day 1'': Party A has an {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} — is out of the money — to the tune of 100. Its prevailing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is 90, so (let’s say, for fun, ''after'' the {{{{{1}}}|Notification Time}} on the {{{{{1}}}|Demand Date}}) Party B has called it for a {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} of a further 10, which it must pay, but not until tomorrow.
*''Day 2'': Meanwhile, Party A has a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} payment of 10 that falls due to Party B, also tomorrow. The arrival of this payment will change Party A’s Exposure to Party B so it is 90. Assuming Party A also pays the Delivery Amount, by knock-off time tomorrow it will have posted a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} of 100, and its Exposure to Party B will only be 90. This means it will be entitled to call Party B for a {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}} of 10.
 
This seems rather a waste of operational effort, and will also take years off your credit officer’s life and may even cause his hair to catch fire. Can Party A just ''not'' pay the further Delivery Acount in anticipation of what will happen tomorrow?


Fun times in the world of [[collateral]] [[operations]].
Fun times in the world of [[collateral]] [[operations]].

Latest revision as of 10:59, 17 September 2021

Relevance of Section 6 to the peacetime operation of the Credit Support Annex

The calculation of {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} under the CSA is modelled on the Section 6(e)(ii) termination methodology following a Termination Event where there is one Affected Party, which in turn tracks the Section 6(e)(i) methodology following an Event of Default, only taking mid-market valuations and not those on the Non-Defaulting Party’s side.

This means you calculate the {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} as:

(a) the Close-out Amounts for each Terminated Transaction plus
(b) Unpaid Amounts due to the Non-defaulting Party; minus
(c) Unpaid Amounts due to the Defaulting Party.

There aren’t really likely, in peacetime, to be Unpaid Amounts loafing about — an amount that you are due to pay today or tomorrow wouldn’t, yet, qualify as “unpaid”, but would be factored into the Close-out Amount calculation.

There is a little bit of a dissonance here, since “{{{{{1}}}|Exposure}}” is a snapshot calculation that treats all future cashflows, whether due in a day, a month or a year from today, the same way: it discounts them back to today, adds them up and sets them off. Your {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} or {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}}, as the case may be, is just the difference between that Exposure and whatever the existing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is. The future is the future: unknowable, unpredictable, but discountable, whether it happens in a day or a thousand years.

All the same, this can seem kind of weird when your CSA you have to pay him an amount today when he owes you an even bigger amount tomorrow. It’s like, “hang on: why am I paying you margin when, tomorrow, you are going to be in the hole to me? Like, by double, if I pay you this margin and you fail to me tomorrow.”

The thing which, I think, causes all the confusion is the dates and amounts of payments under normal Transactions are deterministic, anticipatable, and specified in the Confirmation, whereas whether one is required under a CSA on any day, and how much it will be, depend on things you only usually find out about at the last minute. CSA payments are due “a regular settlement cycle after they are called” — loosey goosey, right? — (or even same day if you are under a VMV CSA and you are on the ball with your calls) whereas normal swap payments are due (say) “on the 15th of March”

So, a scenario to illustrate:

  • Day 1: Party A has an {{{{{1}}}|Exposure}} — is out of the money — to the tune of 100. Its prevailing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} is 90, so (let’s say, for fun, after the {{{{{1}}}|Notification Time}} on the {{{{{1}}}|Demand Date}}) Party B has called it for a {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Amount}} of a further 10, which it must pay, but not until tomorrow.
  • Day 2: Meanwhile, Party A has a Transaction payment of 10 that falls due to Party B, also tomorrow. The arrival of this payment will change Party A’s Exposure to Party B so it is 90. Assuming Party A also pays the Delivery Amount, by knock-off time tomorrow it will have posted a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Balance}} of 100, and its Exposure to Party B will only be 90. This means it will be entitled to call Party B for a {{{{{1}}}|Return Amount}} of 10.

This seems rather a waste of operational effort, and will also take years off your credit officer’s life and may even cause his hair to catch fire. Can Party A just not pay the further Delivery Acount in anticipation of what will happen tomorrow?

Fun times in the world of collateral operations.