By now, the law must have developed a distinct body of company law. The fact that two institutions have the same origin should not per se lead to the conclusion that the same body of principles applies. Brothers, despite their common parents, are not twins automatically. Directors’ duties, despite their origin in the trust, are not trustees’ duties. Latham CJ stated that ‘the power [to alter articles] must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole‘. Malcom CJ said: ‘It cannot be said that the alteration was made otherwise than bona fide for the benefit of the unitholders as a whole.’ The apparent similarity of these two formulations is deceptive. If the unitholders are not associating, as Smith v. Anderson has suggested, is it right to look at all unitholders as a whole? Read the rest of this entry »
Trust cases have demonstrated that the court is very reluctant to make an agent of a trustee liable to the beneficiaries directly on the basis of constructive trust. The agent will not be liable for merely carrying out the instructions of the trustee, even when it knows that the property is trust property. There must be a want of probity on its part.” One cannot expect an agent to make detailed investigations to see whether or not its principal is validly appointed or whether or not its principal is properly exercising its power. After the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines v. Read the rest of this entry »
B. Rights in a Unit: A Preliminary Analysis and Three Propositions
A modern trust deed invariably provides that the trustee will hold the unit trust assets for the unitholders ‘on and subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ and in the case of an authorized unit trust, the regulations made under section 81 of the Financial Services Act 1986.It is always possible for the trust deed or the relevant regulations to contain hundreds of covenants or terms that may alter or add to the rights in the beneficial interests of the trust assets. With the varieties of unit trusts and the varieties of units in the market today, the significance of the qualifying statement ‘on and subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ may easily be overlooked. Read the rest of this entry »
Valuing Caps and Floors
The arbitrage-free binomial model can be used to value a cap and a floor. This is because, as previously explained, a cap and a floor are nothing more than a package or strip of options. More specifically, they are a strip of European options on interest rates. Thus to value a cap the value of each period’s cap, called a caplet, is found and all the caplets are then summed. The same can be done for a floor.
To illustrate how this is done, we will once again use the binomial interest-rate tree to value an interest rate option. Consider first a 5.2%, three-year cap with a notional amount of $10 million. The reference rate is the one-year rates in the binomial tree. The payoff for the cap is annual.
Exhibit 25-12 shows how this cap is valued by valuing the three caplets. The value for the caplet for any year, say year X, is found as follows. First, calculate the payoff in year X at each node as either zero if the one-year rate at the node is less than or equal to 5.2%, or the notional principal amount of $10 million times the difference between the one-year rate at the node and 5.2% if the one-year rate at the node is greater than 5.2%
Then, the backward induction method is used to determine the value of the year X caplet. Read the rest of this entry »
