Fallback and same day payment?

Reading the Bloomberg IBOR Fallback Rate Adjustments Rule Book just published.

I'm trying to understand the period for RFR composition. It looks that the period is based on the LIBOR tenor. It is not the "calculation period" that was used, but never defined, in the consultations.

Do I misunderstand something or there is something strange with the "two days shift" and the "two day shift" may actually be a 0 day shift with respect to the payment date? Do we end up having to pay same day in some cases?

My understanding of the dates and offsets leads to the following example, using the coming Monday as an example. I have a XXX-XIBOR-1M with effective date Friday 2020-03-27. The maturity date is Monday 2020-04-27. The "Accrual Start Date" for the composition has an offset of 2 business days and is Wednesday 2020-02-25, the "End Accrual Date" is 1 month later, i.e. Saturday 2020-04-25, adjusted to Monday 2020-04-27.

I'm not sure if it is possible to even have an end accrual date after the payment date. In USD, because the calendar for usual cash payments (USNY) and SOFR (USGS) are not the same, in theory we could arrive to that. It is enough to have a Monday that is USGS non-good business day and USNY good business day. I have not found one yet. Maybe another combination would do also, I will think more about it, but it is late now!

After all those shenanigans, do we actually end-up in the above example with a same-day payment? The introduction of the "Offset" or "Shift" was suppose to guarantee no same day payment. Is it a screw-up, an intentional feature or a financial fiction?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-curve framework book: new edition in progress

Image
Subject: Interest Rate Modelling in the Multi-curve Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Implementation It has been more than 10 years since I wrote the first edition of the multi-curve framework book. What happened in those 10 years? Why did it take me so long to start a new version? It took me roughly 10 years to write the first edition. The reason it took so long at that time, was that I did not know that I was writing it! I thought I was writing a couple of pages on an obscured and theoretical idea that there was not a `` one curve to rule them all '' but multiple curves. It turned out that it became the actual practice for very clear and important reasons. That was the excuse for the first edition, what is the excuse for the second edition? Since the first edition, many things happen, in particular: March 2015: BCBS - IOSCO: margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives and mandatory variation margin July 2017: The future of LIBOR -- actually it
Read more

Rigged: part 1 - Will there be a part 2?

Image
I have been reading book “Rigged: The Incredible True Story of the Whistleblowers Jailed after Exposing the Rotten Heart of the Financial” (Andy Verity, Flint, June 2023) for some time. It was published several month ago, but I just finished it. To my defence, I have to say that I don’t feel comfortable reading fiction where the “bad guys” are systematically winning by cheating. The book is the story of the miscarriage of justice done in the LIBOR manipulation story. The book content did not surprise me. For anybody having worked on a (swap) trading desk, it is clear that what was described by the accusation was impossible. It is not possible for some middle level trader to create a multi-year, multi-desk, multi-bank international conspiracy over open lines, broker lines, on open offices etc. without all around them, including compliance and senior management to be fully aware of what is going on. Moreover the regulators cannot be ignorant of the situation, except pleading complete in
Read more

A personal statement on the IOSCO Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor

IOSCO has issued a document called “Principles for Financial Benchmarks” in 2013. As such it acted as an (unofficial/unelected) lawmaker. On 3 July 2023, the same IOSCO issued a “ Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor ”. The Statement looks like a tribunal judgement from a trial with no public hearing, no witness, and no defense right from a tribunal with no mandate to judge. And publish on the day before Independence Day! Some personal comments on the document. Transparency The statement indicated “Administrators should consider whether to improve the transparency of their rates". The IOSCO document lack minimum transparency. It does not indicate in any way the “varying degrees of vulnerability of concern“ of the analysed benchmarks. The name of the benchmark are not even indicated. This creates a culpability by association to all non-SOFR benchmarks. The statement refers to a Review of Alternatives to USD Libor ; to my knowledge, the review itself is not available. The st
Read more