银行缺乏定义贸易融资违约的透明度
Yesterday, we looked at how two banks differ in their definition of trade finance related write-offs. Below is the data used to show investors from 2007-2012 historical losses in trade finance.
表显示桑坦德贸易贸易休息2007-2012
第一个结论是,银行在不同eir definition of write-offs when it comes to trade finance assets. Basically, a bank sets its own definition about what is a default. There is not one defined event. Is that what happens in the bond world? Is that what happens with credit insurance? No, there are defined contractual events that define a default. For bonds, it’s a missed payment. For credit insurance, the details are contained in the contract and they typically have 120 days to evaluate.
为什么这对投资者有事？
WhileTradeMaps可能不是一个糟糕的投资（不为我确定，但养老基金，保险公司等必须根据其风险奖励参数进行评估）现实是他们信任银行，银行可以说什么是坏事合同上，他们对此无法做任何事情。
在商品示例中，银行都不希望放弃控制他们可以从投资者收集资金的描述。
当银行建立初始投资组合的参考投资组合时（在商品案例中为10亿美元），它代表了开发和新兴市场风险。由于这些贸易资产的短期性质，花旗银行和桑坦德都需要按照相当定期补充资产，以复制原始参考组合。通常，投资组合将在日常业务中复制。
从行业的角度来看，银行一直向贸易损失数据提供给ICC贸易损失登记处多年。值得注意的是，ICC全球调查是由WTO的要求触发，以建立“亏损数据库”，可以跟踪整个贸易金融业的违约历史记录。“它开始作为一个大厅工具（亚洲开发银行等），仍然是一个大堂工具。但现实是如上所述所见，每个银行都定义了不同的方式。银行如何定义贸易默认值没有透明度或清晰度。
This is a major problem if we are to move to more of an investor world for trade finance assets. We could do with more standardization across regulator bodies. If the ICC wants the loss data to be useful beyond banks then perhaps they can help the banks define standards across jurisdiction.
监管机构，你在听吗？
别忘了注册每周一的TFMS每周消化到您的收件箱here
并通过报名参加替代商业金融almanac列出您的公司manbet手机客户端登入免费的almanbet手机客户端登入manac上市今天。
讨论这一点：