In this approach, the im river and the fine river are separate and different. Any A liability of the SD is paid to SD in the manner agreed by the parties. This can be made up of all the guarantees agreed between the parties and can be sent directly to the SD. The IM is calculated separately according to the rules and all necessary guarantees must be eligible in accordance with the rules and be held in a separate account in accordance with the internal regulations. As a result, FaS and IM are paid in full. This approach has the advantage of simplicity, but the cost of “double diving” makes this approach untenable for most funds. The rules require a remote insolvency framework without reuse for assets. As such, the initial margins are transferred to the insured party under a security interest regime and a specific guarantee framework must be put in place to protect assets in the event of a late payment by one of the trading partners. This framework is based on a specific “trilateral” (ACA) account control agreement signed between the parties and a custodian. Customers must each hold a “long check” of potential security with the triparty custodian. After approval of the im-margin calls, each party is obliged to order the custodian of the RQV (guarantee balance required). This runs counter to the traditional management of VMs, in which each party will also grant the guarantees to be pledged before hiring the custodian. As noted above, the rules required that the IM be held in a separate account with an unrelated third-party custodian.
This means that the chosen custodian should not be connected to over-the-counter counterparties over the counter. This is an important consideration, because some directors also have related companies that are SDs. When a fund negotiates with an SD counterparty with a deposit unit, that deposit unit cannot be chosen to hold the IM for that specific business relationship. However, it would still be possible for this deposit unit to be selected to maintain the FONDS for all other trading relationships in the Fund. As you can see from the architecture of the document above, the rules greatly increase the documentary architecture of a fund. In addition, new parties will be involved in the negotiation of certain documents, meaning that up to four parties could participate in the negotiation of a set of documents between two parties. ACAs can often take longer to negotiate than is normally thought. The reason is that not all SDs have active ACA with all administrators. The early phases of the UMR and the participation of more participants should reduce the time required to negotiate ACCORDS and child care agreements, if the parties become more familiar with this agreement and if more agreements are negotiated. Managers can limit the amount of trading space they offer the fund.