Template:Set-off and netting: Difference between revisions

Template:Set-off and netting (view source)

Revision as of 09:36, 13 December 2019

370 bytes added , 13 December 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,194

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 So if one of my [[master agreement]]s has a broad [[set-off]] provision (as well as its [[close-out netting]] provision), and my [[netting opinion]] says the set off (of amounts due under other master agreements) would also be enforceable, can I then treat all my exposures against that counterparty, across all master agreements, as nettable down to a single obligation?
-No. You need an “written, bilateral netting agreement that creates a single legal obligation, covering all included bilateral master agreements and transactions” (a “[[cross product netting arrangement]]”), itself supported by a [[netting opinion]]. See Rule CRE53.61 of the [[Basel framework]]<ref>https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/53.htm</ref>
+Sorry to be the bearer of the buzzkill, but no. You need a “written, bilateral netting agreement that creates a single legal obligation, covering all included bilateral master agreements and transactions” (a “[[cross product netting arrangement]]”), itself supported by a [[netting opinion]]. See Rule CRE53.61-9 of the [[Basel framework]]<ref>https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/53.htm</ref> This might be, for example, a jopint-association [[Cross-Product Master Agreement]] - and most [[prime brokerage agreement]]s do this too.
+But also check whether your own firm’s operational systems are capable of recognising cross-product netting arrangements. From personal experience, the [[JC]] suspects many aren’t.