Sunday, April 29, 2012

Caiola v. Citibank, N.A. case brief, 295 F.3d 312.

Caiola v. Citibank, N.A.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2002.
295 F.3d 312.

(Equity Swap Case, don’t care about law)
-Dodd Frank changed this case, situation here no longer true today.

P buying shares of Philip Morris, agreed with bank to do ‘synthetic trading’.
-Borrowing to buy; P was concerned with “footprints”.  He didn’t want people to copy his strategies.

A synthetic transaction is typically a contractual agreement between two counterparties, usually an investor and a bank, that seeks to economically replicate the ownership and physical trading of shares and options.
-P makes periodic interest payments on the notional value of a stock position and also payments equal to any decrease in value of the shares upon which the notional value is based.
-Citibank pays any increase in the value of the shares and any dividends, also based on the same notional value.
    -Citibank: worried about stock increases, puts them at significant risks.
Delta Hedging: Makes a derivative position, such as an option position, immune to small changes in the price of an underlying asset, such as a stock, over a short period of time.
→ How would Citibank hedge the risk?
-Buy the physical stock as a hedge.  However, would leave a footprint.
-They would get interest on the loan still if the stock goes up, but have physical stock.
P → Citibank: hedge a different way.  Buy underlying assets in limited amounts instead.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...