82,891
edits
Template:Ineligiblecreditsupport: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{csaprov|Credit Support}} which has been delivered but has subsequently fallen out of eligibililty criteria (and any non-eligible {{csaprov|Distributions}} and {{csaprov|Interest Amounts}} received in respect of {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}}) remains part of the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}, but is valued at zero. | {{csaprov|Credit Support}} which has been delivered but has subsequently fallen out of eligibililty criteria (and any non-eligible {{csaprov|Distributions}} and {{csaprov|Interest Amounts}} received in respect of {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}}) remains part of the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}, but is valued at zero. | ||
While the world is moving towards a predilection for cash only, single currency | While the world is moving towards a predilection for cash only, single currency [[CSA]]s, so this objection might soon seem archaic, in the mean time note a whopping great hole in the {{tag|CSA}} documentation here. ''What happens to stuff which, when you posted, was {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}}, but after posting it ceases to be eligible? How do you get it back?'' | ||
''What happens to stuff which, when you posted, was {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}}, but after posting it ceases to be eligible? How do you get it back?'' | |||
On the face of it, it’s straightforward: | On the face of it, it’s straightforward: | ||
{{ | {{quote|''the {{csaprov|Value}} of “any items that are comprised in a {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} and are not {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} is zero.”'' | ||
''the {{csaprov|Value}} of “any items that are comprised in a {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} and are not {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} is zero.”'' | :—Definition of {{csaprov|Value}}, {{tag|CSA}}}} | ||
:—Definition of {{csaprov|Value}}, {{tag|CSA}} | |||
}} | |||
So it | So it doesn’t count to the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}. But just because something has no “{{csaprov|Value}}” under your {{csaprov|CSA}} doesn’t mean it has no value at all. There’s no accounting for taste, after all. If the {{csaprov|Transferee}} doesn’t want it, it should give it back, right? | ||
''Sans doubte'', that’s what the boxwallahs at {{tag|ISDA}} had in mind. But — ''whoops'' — that’s not quite what they managed: The mechanism for getting your posted collateral back is to wait for the {{csaprov|Exposure}} to reduce, and then call back [[equivalent]] items to those you posted. But even the day your {{csaprov|Exposure}} goes to (or through) zero, you can call only back {{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}} with a {{csaprov|Value}} equal to your existing {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} - in the eyes of the {{tag|CSA}}, that is all you have posted. | ''Sans doubte'', that’s what the boxwallahs at {{tag|ISDA}} had in mind. But — ''whoops'' — that’s not quite what they managed: The mechanism for getting your posted collateral back is to wait for the {{csaprov|Exposure}} to reduce, and then call back [[equivalent]] items to those you posted. But even the day your {{csaprov|Exposure}} goes to (or through) zero, you can call only back {{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}} with a {{csaprov|Value}} equal to your existing {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} - in the eyes of the {{tag|CSA}}, that is all you have posted. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
Most houses have long since crafted language to deal with this contingency. I say “crafted” but “congealed” is a better description: the standard formulations are a tedious clutter of masticated paragraphs that interrupt the elegant flow of your elections, impeding the flow like a tacky mess that accumulates around the nozzle of a ketchup dispenser. All you really need to say is this: | Most houses have long since crafted language to deal with this contingency. I say “crafted” but “congealed” is a better description: the standard formulations are a tedious clutter of masticated paragraphs that interrupt the elegant flow of your elections, impeding the flow like a tacky mess that accumulates around the nozzle of a ketchup dispenser. All you really need to say is this: | ||
{{ | {{quote|If at any time any item comprising a {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} ceases to be {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} the {{csaprov|Transferee}} must transfer to the equivalent items of the same type, nominal value, description and amount to the {{csaprov|Transferor}} on the {{csaprov|Settlement Day}} following the demand by the {{csaprov|Transferor}}. }} | ||
If at any time any item comprising a {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} ceases to be {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} the {{csaprov|Transferee}} must transfer to the equivalent items of the same type, nominal value, description and amount to the {{csaprov|Transferor}} on the {{csaprov|Settlement Day}} following the demand by the {{csaprov|Transferor}}. | |||
}} | |||
You | You don’t need to make this transfer conditional on the {{csaprov|Transferor}} ponying up replacement {{csaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} - [[Q.E.D.]] this stuff has no {{csaprov|Value}}, so his {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} will be suddenly in debit, and the {{csaprov|Transferee}} can call additional {{csaprov|Delivery Amount}} independently of the return of this item. | ||