82,891
edits
Trade exposures with CCPs - CRR Provision: Difference between revisions
Trade exposures with CCPs - CRR Provision (view source)
Revision as of 15:26, 21 October 2016
, 21 October 2016no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
It is clear in {{crrprov|306(1)(c)}} that it must be that the {{crrprov|CCP}} has defaulted under the transaction (i.e., more than the {{crrprov|CCP}} just generally be “in default” in the abstract in the sense of being “insolvent”. (Of course, a CCP’s Insolvency would come into play if it led to a default (which ordinarily it would, unless the contract had already been breached by the clearing member, and particularly where that clearing member’s default had, of itself, brought about the insolvency!) | It is clear in {{crrprov|306(1)(c)}} that it must be that the {{crrprov|CCP}} has defaulted under the transaction (i.e., more than the {{crrprov|CCP}} just generally be “in default” in the abstract in the sense of being “insolvent”. (Of course, a CCP’s Insolvency would come into play if it led to a default (which ordinarily it would, unless the contract had already been breached by the clearing member, and particularly where that clearing member’s default had, of itself, brought about the insolvency!) | ||
It ought to be safe to say any negligence (whether or not gross), wilful default or fraud on behalf of the {{crrprov|clearing member}} in carrying out its obligations under the transaction with the CCP would, QED, be a default under that transaction by the clearing member: (any action it was ''entitled'' to take under the trasnaction, could hardly be 'negligent' as far as the CCP was concerned). | It ought to be safe to say any negligence (whether or not gross), wilful default or fraud on behalf of the {{crrprov|clearing member}} in carrying out its obligations under the transaction with the CCP would, [[QED]], be a default under that transaction by the clearing member: (any action it was ''entitled'' to take under the trasnaction, could hardly be 'negligent' as far as the CCP was concerned). | ||
So a loss to the {{crrprov|clearing member}} which arose out of the inability of the {{crrprov|CCP}} to perform under a transaction which in turn came about as a result of the clearing member defaulting in its obligations to that {{crrprov|CCP}} would not be “loss suffered in the event that CCP defaults”: if the clearing member sued the CCP for that loss, it would fail. | So a loss to the {{crrprov|clearing member}} which arose out of the inability of the {{crrprov|CCP}} to perform under a transaction which in turn came about as a result of the clearing member defaulting in its obligations to that {{crrprov|CCP}} would not be “loss suffered in the event that CCP defaults”: if the clearing member sued the CCP for that loss, it would fail. | ||