
Ultimate access to all questions.
Explanation:
When analyzing the exposures provided, all the contract values are positive. A netting framework (Option A) only reduces credit exposure when there is a mix of positive and negative exposures that can offset each other; hence, netting is ineffective here.
Selling a credit default swap (Option D) would assume more credit risk rather than mitigating it. The appropriate action would be to buy a CDS.
While increasing collateral (Option B) can reduce counterparty risk, it is often difficult and costly to negotiate, particularly with a highly rated entity (A-rated).
Using credit triggers (Option C), such as rating downgrade triggers, is a standard and highly appropriate technique for highly-rated counterparties. It allows the hedge fund to demand collateral or terminate the transactions if the counterparty's credit rating drops below a certain threshold, mitigating the risk without imposing an immediate drag on liquidity for the currently A-rated counterparty.
Q.7 A hedge fund has the following credit risk exposures to AB&B, an A-rated corporation:
| Contract | Contract value (USD) |
|---|---|
| A | 44,000,000 |
| B | 88,000,000 |
| C | 35,200,000 |
| D | 3,300,000 |
| E | 20,000,000 |
The fund is looking into ways of reducing counterparty credit risk. Which of the following credit risk mitigation techniques would be most appropriate?
A
Implementing a netting framework
B
Increasing collateral
C
Use of credit triggers
D
Sell credit default swaps
No comments yet.