How do netting agreements reduce credit exposure and what is close-out netting?
FRM Part II emphasizes netting as a critical CRM technique. I understand the basic concept of offsetting positions, but what exactly is close-out netting under ISDA, and how does it affect exposure calculations?
Netting is arguably the most impactful credit risk mitigation technique in the derivatives market. Under an ISDA Master Agreement with a netting provision, it transforms how exposure is calculated upon default.
Types of netting:
1. Payment netting (settlement netting):
- On any given day, if both parties owe each other cash flows in the same currency, only the net amount is exchanged
- Reduces settlement risk (Herstatt risk) but doesn't change credit exposure significantly
2. Close-out netting (the big one):
- Upon default, ALL transactions under the ISDA Master Agreement are terminated simultaneously
- Each transaction is marked to market
- Positive and negative MTM values are netted into a single amount
- Only this net amount is owed — either to the surviving party or to the defaulter's estate
Why it matters — the numbers:
Consider Sentinel Bank with 10 interest rate swaps against Apex Corp:
| Swap | MTM Value |
|---|---|
| Swap 1 | +$12M |
| Swap 2 | -$8M |
| Swap 3 | +$5M |
| Swap 4 | -$15M |
| Swap 5 | +$20M |
| Swap 6 | -$3M |
| Swap 7 | +$7M |
| Swap 8 | -$11M |
| Swap 9 | +$2M |
| Swap 10 | -$6M |
Without netting (gross exposure):
Sum of positive MTM = $12 + $5 + $20 + $7 + $2 = $46M at risk
With close-out netting (net exposure):
Total MTM = $12 - $8 + $5 - $15 + $20 - $3 + $7 - $11 + $2 - $6 = $3M at risk
Reduction: 93.5% — from $46M to $3M
Legal requirements for netting to be enforceable:
- An enforceable ISDA Master Agreement must be in place
- The netting provision must be legally valid in the counterparty's jurisdiction
- The agreement must include a single agreement clause — all transactions form one legal agreement
- Legal opinions confirming enforceability in relevant jurisdictions
Netting ratio — measuring effectiveness:
Netting Ratio = Net Exposure / Gross Exposure
For Sentinel: 3/46 = 0.065 (93.5% reduction)
Industry average netting ratios for major dealers: 0.10-0.20 (80-90% reduction)
Impact on regulatory capital (Basel):
- Netting reduces Current Exposure in the current exposure method
- Reduces exposure under SA-CCR (Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit Risk)
- Banks must have legal certainty of netting enforceability to claim capital benefits
Exam tip: FRM Part II tests the calculation of gross vs. net exposure, the legal requirements for enforceable netting, and the netting ratio concept.
Practice credit risk calculations on AcadiFi.
Master Part II with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
How should I think about the relationship between Macaulay duration and modified duration instead of memorizing two separate definitions?
Why do hedge calculations often use dollar duration or DV01 instead of just modified duration?
When should I prefer historical simulation VaR over delta-normal VaR?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.