82,891
edits
Template:Flawed asset capsule: Difference between revisions
→2(a)(iii) in a time of Credit Support
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Exactly ''which'' default events can trigger a flawed asset clause will depend on the contract. Under the {{isdama}}, {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} and even ''Potential'' {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} do, but {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s and {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s do not. {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s are softer, “hey look, it’s no-one’s fault, it’s just one of those things” kind of closeouts, so that makes some sense — but on the other hand this is not really true of {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s, which tend to be credit-driven and with more “culpability” and “event-of-defaulty-ness” about them. This is, a bit dissonant, but there are far greater dissonances, so we park this one and carry on. | Exactly ''which'' default events can trigger a flawed asset clause will depend on the contract. Under the {{isdama}}, {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} and even ''Potential'' {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} do, but {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s and {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s do not. {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s are softer, “hey look, it’s no-one’s fault, it’s just one of those things” kind of closeouts, so that makes some sense — but on the other hand this is not really true of {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s, which tend to be credit-driven and with more “culpability” and “event-of-defaulty-ness” about them. This is, a bit dissonant, but there are far greater dissonances, so we park this one and carry on. | ||
====2(a)(iii) in a time of Credit Support==== | |||
Flawed assets entered the argot in a simpler, more (''less''?) peaceable time when two-way, zero-threshold, daily-margined collateral arrangements were | Flawed assets entered the argot in a simpler, more (''less''?) peaceable time when two-way, zero-threshold, daily-margined collateral arrangements were an unusual sight. Nor, in those times, were dealers often of the view that they might be on the wrong end of a flawed assets clause. They presumed if anyone was going bust, it would be their client. Because — the house always wins, right? The events of [[Global financial crisis|September 2018]] were, therefore, quite the chastening experience. | ||
In any case without collateral, a {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting Party}} could, be nursing a large, unfunded [[mark-to-market]] liability which it would not want to pay out just because the clot at the other end of the contract had driven his fund into a ditch. | |||
That was then: in these days of mandatory [[regulatory margin]], counterparties generally cash-collateralise their net market positions to, or near, zero each day, so a large uncollateralised position is a much less likely scenario. So most people will be happy enough just closing out: the optionality not to is not very valuable. | |||