Template:M intro isda Party A and Party B: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
Line 105: Line 105:
But are [[synthetic equity swap]]s an odd use case? Aren’t other swaps more bilateral, and less “lendy” in nature? What about interest rate swaps? Surely ''paying'' a fixed rate while ''receiving'' a floating rate has none of the characteristics of borrowership and loanery about it?  
But are [[synthetic equity swap]]s an odd use case? Aren’t other swaps more bilateral, and less “lendy” in nature? What about interest rate swaps? Surely ''paying'' a fixed rate while ''receiving'' a floating rate has none of the characteristics of borrowership and loanery about it?  


The first point to make here is that in the real universe of actual, non-synthetic things, ''fixed or floating rate cashflows do exist independently''.<ref>Sure, you could sell a strip of coupons off your bond. Okay. But to do that, there first has to be a bond, and you have to buy it and ''cut it up''. Once you’ve done that, you have your disembodied interest cashflow, but you also have this weird, mutilated principal-only instrument ghosting around the market at a heavy discount to a fully-limbed equivalent, sort of like Weird Barbie or one of those intercised kids without a daemon in ''His Dark Materials''. </ref> They always come attached to an asset of some kind. They are the ''return'' on an investment of principal. In the normal, non-swappist world, to get exposure to a rate in a given “notional amount” is to make a principal investment in that amount. If you want a floating rate on a notional of a hundred bucks, you pony up a hundred bucks and buy a floating rate note.  
The first point to make here is that in the real universe of actual, non-synthetic things, ''fixed or floating rate cashflows do not exist independently''.<ref>Sure, you could sell a strip of coupons off your bond. Okay. But to do that, there first has to be a bond, and you have to buy it and ''cut it up''. Once you’ve done that, you have your disembodied interest cashflow, but you also have this weird, mutilated principal-only instrument ghosting around the market at a heavy discount to a fully-limbed equivalent, sort of like Weird Barbie or one of those intercised kids without a daemon in ''His Dark Materials''. </ref> That would be like a shadow without a boy. Income cashflows always come attached to an income-bearing asset of some kind. They are the ''return'' on the investment of principal, should that investment not self-capitalise. In the normal, non-swappist world, to get exposure to such a cashflow in a given “notional amount” you have to make a principal investment in that amount. If you want a floating rate on a notional of a hundred bucks, you pony up a hundred bucks and buy a floating rate note.  


It was only once the [[Children of the Woods|Children of the Forest]] wrought their wristy magic on the [[First Men]] in the dark thickets of [[Bretton Woods|Woods of Bretton]] that the ways of the [[Single agreement|Single Agreement]] came into common understanding. Only then were leaden, earth-bound notions of principal swept away; the swap market took wing upon the nuclear power of infinite leverage.
Swaps changed all that. It was only once the [[Children of the Woods|Children of the Forest]] wrought their wristy magic on the [[First Men]] in the dark thickets of [[Bretton Woods|Woods of Bretton]] that the ways of the [[Single agreement|Single Agreement]] came into common understanding. Only then were leaden, earth-bound notions of principal swept away; the swap market took wing upon the nuclear power of infinite leverage. Income flows could bust free of their leaden principal host and frolic in ISDA’s glittering starlight.


A swap can have disembodied fixed and floating rates only because, when they are set against each other, the principal investments they would normally be attached to ''cancel each other out''. The principal investments are there, but just ''assumed''.  
''But''. A swap can have disembodied fixed and floating rates only because, when they are set against each other, the principal investments to which they would normally be attached ''cancel each other out''. Make no mistake: those principal investments are there, but they are just ''assumed''. Taken as a given.  


Again, the key is to consider the respective parties’ economic positions before and after trading. The customer does change its net position; the [[dealer]] does not. Swapping a fixed cashflow for a floating one is to ''keep'' the “asset” that funds that cashflow (which logically must be a “fixed-rate asset”), and to acquire a new floating-rate asset in the same principal amount. This is also the principal amount of the implied loan the customer must take out to acquire the floating-rate asset. That being the case, the principal of the floating-rate asset cancels out against the principal of the loan, and the customer left with just the floating rate cashflows, for which it must pay the fixed rate it has agreed. The customer’s position is the present value of the floating rate it has bought minus the present value of the fixed rate of its financing.
Doesn’t this mean that each party to a swap is lending to the other? ''No''.
 
Consider the respective parties’ economic positions before and after trading. The customer does change its net position; the [[dealer]] does not. Swapping a fixed cashflow for a floating one is to ''keep'' the “asset” that funds that cashflow (which logically must be a “fixed-rate asset”), and to acquire a new floating-rate asset in the same principal amount. This is also the principal amount of the implied loan the customer must take out to acquire the floating-rate asset. That being the case, the principal of the floating-rate asset cancels out against the principal of the loan, and the customer left with just the floating rate cashflows, for which it must pay the fixed rate it has agreed. The customer’s position is the present value of the floating rate it has bought minus the present value of the fixed rate of its financing.


Without a loan, the customer would have to sell its whole fixed-rate asset and use the proceeds to buy a floating-rate bond from the dealer. That is, pay the principal amount to the dealer, and acquire the interest and principal cashflows of a floating rate asset. Here the customer is not borrowing anything.
Without a loan, the customer would have to sell its whole fixed-rate asset and use the proceeds to buy a floating-rate bond from the dealer. That is, pay the principal amount to the dealer, and acquire the interest and principal cashflows of a floating rate asset. Here the customer is not borrowing anything.