Netting

Explained:

bilateral netting

closeout netting

multilateral netting

netting

payment netting


 
 

Ads by Contingency Analysis

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.

Example: No Netting
Exhibit 1

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.

Example: Bilateral Netting
Exhibit 2

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.

Example: Multilateral Netting
Exhibit 3

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.

Related Internal Links

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.

Sponsored Links

 

Disclaimer

website: http://www.contingencyanalysis.com
glossary direct link: http://www.riskglossary.com
copyright © Contingency Analysis, 2004