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).

One Password - multiple legal entities