Template:M detail Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(ii): Difference between revisions

The industry has generally moved to omit [[Prong Y]], though possibly errantly so — the “material increase in costs” limb of this definition — because it is largely dealt with already in “{{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}”. It was introduced to capture those changes in law and regulation (changes in regulatory capital calculations, for very good example), that are driven by leglisation, but don’t outlaw the trade altogether, but just make it more expensive to run (either the {{eqderivprov|transaction}} itself, or its [[hedge]])

But, if you were splitting hairs, you might say that not all “materially increased” costs a party may incur “in performing its obligations under such {{eqderivprov|Transaction}}” will necessarily relate to hedging — if you suffer a  higher [[regulatory capital]] charge on your actual {{eqderivprov|transaction}} with your {{isdaprov|counterparty}}, that would not be an {{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}, so a {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} (and, when it comes to it, a ''non-{{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}}'') should stand its ground on omitting “[[Prong Y]]”.

Those who do not have the stomach for this fight may see this expressed as: "Applicable, provided that Section {{eqderivprov|12.9(a)(ii)(Y)}} of the {{eqderivprov|Equity Definitions}} does not apply."

See also, for example, the [[2007 European Master Equity Derivatives Confirmation Agreement]].

Yet, arguably, there’s no crossover here between [[Prong Y]] and {{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}, as [[Prong Y]] only related to performance of the ''{{eqderivprov|Transaction}}'' not the [[hedge]].