Trade exposures with CCPs - CRR Provision: Difference between revisions

Trade exposures with CCPs - CRR Provision (view source)

63 bytes added , 4 June 2018

no edit summary

82,882

edits

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 Of course, a {{crrprov|CCP}}’s {{tag|insolvency}} would be likely to ''lead'' to a transaction [[default]].
-Any [[negligence]]<ref>Whether or not [[Gross negligence|gross]])</ref>, [[wilful default]] or [[fraud]] on the {{crrprov|clearing member}}’s part under the {{crrprov|CCP}} transaction would, [[QED]], be a default ''by the {{crrprov|clearing member}}''. The {{crrprov|CCP}} then would be ''entitled''  to withhold payment under the transaction; ie, it would not be in default in doing so.
+Any [[negligence]]<ref>Whether or not ''[[Gross negligence|gross]]''. You may be [[inclined]] to go there: my advice is don’t.</ref>, [[wilful default]] or [[fraud]] on the {{crrprov|clearing member}}’s part under the {{crrprov|CCP}} transaction would, [[QED]], be a default ''by the {{crrprov|clearing member}}''. The {{crrprov|CCP}} then would be ''entitled''  to withhold payment under the transaction; ie, it would not be in default in doing so.
 What, then, if a {{crrprov|clearing member}} default were so egregious that it caused the total failure of the {{crrprov|CCP}}, meaning the CCP failed to pay even amounts that it was obliged to pay on default by the {{crrprov|clearing member}}?