This is the content of an email: The system is certainly not set up to accommodate that now but we could probably draft around it on a case by case basis. It strikes me that while we might be able to come up with a legal framework that would allow for this, the credit considerations are more problematic. I would guess that the back office will also be unhappy about having to manually rearrange all of the trades. This really seems like it is similar to the Aquilla problem in some respects. When we suggested allowing one entity to trade for another, Credit was quite concerned because the system wouldn't be able to check the appropriate headroom. I suppose Credit could just assign the lowest headroom for any of the eligible entities to the entire relationship - would that be acceptable to everyone? Another possibility is for the fund to set up a master trading entity which does the trades with us and then does back to back deals with whichever entities need the allocations. That would let them do a large transaction on EOL and then smaller transactions with the other entities. Of course, the master trading entity would need to qualify for credit on its own somehow. Guarantees from anyone other than the owner would be difficult (upstream guarantee problems).
What was the subject line for this email?
One Password - multiple legal entities