82,891
edits
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii) (view source)
Revision as of 17:07, 6 August 2020
, 6 August 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isda 2(a)(iii) summ|isdaprov}} | |||
===...These days?=== | |||
The overriding mischief that a [[flawed asset]] provision addresses arises when a solvent swap counterparty with a long-dated [[out-of-the-money]] portfolio, finds its counterparty has, against the run of play, gone bust. If I am in the hole to you to the tune of $50 million, but that liability isn’t due to mature for ten years, in which time it might well come right and even go positive, I don’t want to crystallise it now, at the darkest point, just because ''you'' sir have gone tits-up. | |||
Answer: insert a flawed asset provision. This lets me suspend my performance on your default, ''without'' closing you out, until you have got your house in order and paid all the transaction flows you owe me. So the portfolio goes into suspended animation. Like Han Solo in ''The Empire Strikes Back''. | |||
Now if, heaven forfend, you ''can’t'' thereafter get your house in order — if what was once your house is presently a smoking crater —then the game is up anyway, isn’t it? You will be wandering around outside your building in a daze clutching an [[Iron Mountain]] box cycling hurriedly through the stages of grief, wondering where it all went so wrong, wishing you had pursued that music career after all, but in any case casting scant thoughts for your firm’s unrealising mark-to-market position on that derivative portfolio with me. | |||
This seems cavalier in these enlightened times, but in the old days people did think like this. But, with the gruesome goings-on of 2008, those are largely bygone days, though older [[legal eagle]]s may wistfully look into the middle distance and reminiscing about these kinder, happier times. Those who didn’t wind up desperately rekindling their music careers in 2009, anyway. | |||
In the aftermath of the [[Lehman]] collapse regulators showed some interest in curtailing the [[flawed asset]] provision. The Bank of England suggested a “use it or lose it” exercise period of 30 days. Ideas like this foundered on the practical problem that repapering tens of thousands of {{isdama}}s was not wildly practical, especially without a clear consensus on what the necessary amendment might look like. So the initiative withered on the vine somewhat. | |||
In the meantime, other regulatory reform initiatives overtook the debate. These days flawed asset provision is largely irrelevant, seeing as brokers don’t tend to take massive uncollateralised directional bets. Compulsory [[variation margin]] means for the most part they ''can’t'', even if the Volcker rule allowed them to. | |||
Since all swap counterparties now must pay the cash value of their negative [[mark-to-market]] exposures every day, the very thing the flawed asset seeks to avoid — paying out negative positions — has happened, there is a lot more to be said for immediately closing out an {{isda}}, whether or not it is [[out-of-the-money]]. | |||
===Flawed assets generally=== | ===Flawed assets generally=== | ||
{{Flawed asset capsule}} | {{Flawed asset capsule}} | ||