
Explanation:
The false statement is C. A CCP does reduce counterparty risk through clearing, margining, and collateralization, but saying it would almost certainly have prevented AIG is too strong and not guaranteed. The other statements are consistent with the historical distinctions discussed in the GFC lessons:
Ultimate access to all questions.
No comments yet.
Question 602.3. In regard to lessons of the global financial crisis (GFC), Gregory writes, "The OTC derivative market developed other mechanisms [i.e., in addition to netting and margin requirements] for potentially controlling the inherent counterparty and systemic risks they create. Examples of these mechanisms are SPVs, DPCs, monolines and CDPCs. Although these methods have been largely deemed irrelevant in today’s market, they share some common features with CCPs and a historical overview of their development is therefore useful … The concepts of SPVs, DPCs, monolines and CDPCs have all been shown to lead to certain issues. Indeed, it could be argued that as risk mitigation methods they all have fatal flaws, which explains why there is little evidence of them in today’s OTC derivative market. It is important to ask to what extent such flaws may also exist within an OTC CCP, which does share certain characteristics of these structures."³
In regard to the lessons of the crisis and these mechanisms—i.e., SPV, monolines, and CDPC—each of the following statements is true EXCEPT, which is false?
A
A special purpose vehicle (SPV) transforms counterparty risk into legal risk
B
A key difference between CCPs and monolines/CDPCs is that CCPs require initial and variation margin in all situations
C
A central counterparty (CCP) would almost certainly have prevented AIG by clearing their trades and disbelieving their inflated AAA ratings
D
A key difference between CCPs and monolines/CDPCs is that CCPs have a "matched book" and do not take any residual market risk (except when members default)