FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Netting, Close-out and Related Aspects
A bank has two netting sets with a counterparty. Set 1 has trades valued at +30 and -10 (USD million). Set 2 has trades valued at +8 and -20 (USD million). Netting is enforceable within each set but not across sets. What is the current exposure, and how much netting benefit is there relative to no netting at all?
Exposure is USD 20 million and the netting benefit is USD 18 million. Set 1 nets to 20 and Set 2 nets to -12, floored at zero because there is no cross-set netting. Gross positive exposure is 38 million, so netting saves 18 million.
- AExposure 20; benefit 18Correct
- BExposure 8; benefit 30
- CExposure 20; benefit 10
- DExposure 38; benefit 0
Explanation
Set 1 net = 20, Set 2 net = -12 so exposure floors at 0. Total exposure = 20. Without netting, exposure = 30 + 8 = 38. Benefit = 38 - 20 = 18. Offsetting across sets (net 8) is not permitted.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Netting, Close-out and Related Aspects shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Netting, Close-out and Related Aspects questions
- A bank has two trades with a counterparty that has just entered insolvency. Trade A has a mark-to-market value of +40 to the bank and Trade …
- A bank has two counterparties. Under a legally enforceable ISDA with netting, trades with A have values of +30 and -12 (USD million to the b…
- Which feature of the close-out process most directly protects a non-defaulting party against the risk that a liquidator selectively performs…
- Bank A has four trades with Counterparty X under one enforceable netting agreement, with mark-to-market values to Bank A of +14 million, +9 …
- Following a counterparty default, a bank needs to determine the close-out value of a long-dated swap. Markets are illiquid and the bank's ow…
- A bank has three derivatives with a defaulted counterparty under an enforceable netting agreement, with close-out values to the bank of +USD…