|
Netting of cash flows or obligations is a
means of reducing credit exposure to
counterparties. Two forms of netting are widely employed in
derivatives markets:
Payment
netting reduces
settlement risk: If counterparties are to exchange multiple cash
flows during a given day, they can agree to net those cash flows to one
payment per currency. Not only does such payment netting reduce
settlement risk, it also streamlines processing.
Closeout
netting reduces
pre-settlement risk: If counterparties have multiple offsetting
obligations to one another—for example, multiple
interest rate swaps or
foreign exchange forward contracts—they can agree to net those obligations. In the event that a
counterparty defaults, or some other termination event occurs, the
outstanding contracts are all terminated. They are
marked to market and
settled
with a net payment. This technique eliminates "cherry picking" whereby a
defaulting counterparty fails to make payment on its obligations, but is
legally entitled to collect on the obligations owed to it.
With bilateral netting, two
counterparties agree to net with one another. They sign a master agreement
specifying the types of netting to be performed as well as the existing
and future contracts which will be affected. Bilateral netting is common
in the OTC derivatives markets.
Multilateral netting occurs
between multiple counterparties. Typically, it is facilitated through a
membership organization such as an exchange. Multilateral netting has the
advantage that it reduces credit exposure even more than does bilateral
netting. It has the disadvantage that it tends to "mutualize" credit risk.
Because credit exposure to each counterparty is spread across all
participants, there is less incentive for each participant to scrutinize
the credit worthiness of each other counterparty.
Let's consider an example. Exhibit 1 illustrates non-netting
commitments between three counterparties. To keep the example general,
"commitments" could be cash flows to occur in a single day, or they might
represent the market value of outstanding contracts.
|
|
 |
 |
|
Without netting, a defaulting counterparty
can "cherry pick" obligations, demanding payments on obligations
owed it while defaulting on its own obligations. If Party C defaults
in this example, Parties A and B will still have to perform on their
respective obligations of values 3 and 4. |
|
Suppose, in Exhibit 1, Party C were to default on its commitments. The
replacement cost for Party A would be 6. For Party B it would be 3.
Exhibit 2
illustrates how an identical set of commitments would appear with
bilateral netting. In Exhibit 2, three bilateral netting agreements are in
force, one between each pair of counterparties. Now, if Party C defaulted,
the replacement cost for Party A would be 3. For Party B, there would be
no replacement cost because Party C owes it no net obligation.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
With bilateral netting, pairs of parties
agree to net their obligations with each other. In this example,
three bilateral netting agreements are in place. |
Finally, Exhibit 3 illustrates identical commitments under multilateral
netting. Here, if Party C were to default, the total replacement
cost—which would be shared by Party A and Party B—would be 2. The manner
in which that replacement cost would be allocated between Party A and
Party B would depend on the specific provisions of the multilateral
netting arrangement.
|
|
 |
 |
|
With multilateral netting, all parties'
obligations are netted. Specific rules are adopted for allocating
residual obligations to the non-defaulting parties. |
While netting can be an effective means of reducing credit exposures,
it can raise legal issues. Many jurisdictions do not recognize the
enforceability of closeout bilateral netting agreements, arguing that such
agreements undermine the interests of third-party creditors. Responsible
legal counsel should be consulted before entering into any netting
arrangement.
|
|
 |
|
collateral
Assets held to secure an obligation.
credit enhancement
Any methodology that reduces the credit risk of a transaction with
a counterparty.
credit risk Risk due to
uncertainty in a counterparty's ability to meet its obligations.
legal risk
Risk from uncertainty due to legal actions or uncertainty in the applicability
or interpretation of contracts, laws or regulations.
physical settlement, cash settlement Describes the two ways
derivative instruments can settle.
portfolio credit
risk Credit risk associated with a portfolio of obligations,
typically of multiple obligors.
pre-settlement risk Credit risk of default on a derivative instrument
prior to final settlement.
settlement In finance, performance
on a contractual obligation.
settlement risk A form of credit risk that arises at the settlement
of a transaction. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|