Template:Csa Base Currency and Eligible Currency summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst:csa base currency capsule|{{{1}}}}}")
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Two interesting (lack of) design points here: Firstly, the fallback for the {{{{{1}}}prov|Base Currency}} is specified ''in the Paragraph {{{{{1}}}prov|11}} election schedule'' and not the pre-printed definition of {{{{{1}}}prov|Base Currency}} inside the {{{1}}} itself. The election schedule is the bit you amend, so by the lights of the Document Design Subcommittee of {{icds}}, you might expect your negotiated election to say: The {{{{{1}}}prov|Base Currency}} is [[United States dollars]] unless specified here: [[Pounds sterling]].
====American hegemony====
The {{nycsa}} contemplates ''only'' [[US dollars]], so the {{nyvmcsa}} is something of an olive branch to the remainder of the planet or sign that the American Empire is truly in a state of unstoppable decline, depending on how you look at it. The English law credit support annexes have always been more [[inclusive]], allowing any number of foreign currencies to be the Base Currency, or Eligible Currencies. Laudable.


This, it is submitted, would confuse someone not expecting it. Especially someone in a panic, who has just been sent a bad photocopy of a heavily amended fifteen-year-old ISDA and CSA of a counterparty whose credit is plummeting and told to quickly figure out how to close out this blessed agreement, with the head of risk breathes down her neck. Why, she will wonder, didn’t it just say, “'''{{{{{1}}}prov|Base Currency}}''': [[Pounds sterling]]?”
====English law docs====
Two interesting (lack of) design points here:
 
Firstly, the fallback for the {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} is specified ''in the Paragraph {{{{{1}}}|11}} election schedule'' and not the pre-printed definition of {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} inside the {{{1}}} itself. The election schedule is the bit you amend, so by the lights of the Document Design Subcommittee of {{icds}}, you might expect your preprinted definition to say: The {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} is [[United States dollars]] unless specified otherwise in the Elections, and then your Elections schedule could say, “as per the Definitions section” or, if different, say, “[[Pounds sterling]]”.
 
Seeing “[[United States dollars]] unless specified here: Pounds Sterling,it is submitted, would confuse someone not expecting it. Especially someone in a panic, who has just been sent a bad photocopy of a heavily amended fifteen-year-old ISDA and CSA of a counterparty whose credit is plummeting and told to quickly figure out how to close out this blessed agreement, with the head of risk breathing onionly down her neck. Why, she will wonder, didn’t it just say, “'''{{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}}''': [[Pounds sterling]]?”


Why indeed.
Why indeed.


Point two is that, unlike the {{1992ma}} whose publication it quickly followed, the {{csa}} does at least think about a fallback {{{{{1}}}prov|Base Currency}} for those who have forgotten to specify one. But the fallback it chooses, for an English law agreement, is [[US dollars]]. The one demographic ''least'' likely to be trading under an [[English law]] {{isdama}} are those whose home currency is [[USD]].
Secondly, unlike the {{1992ma}} whose publication it quickly followed, the {{csa}} does at least think about a fallback {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} for those who have forgotten to specify one. The fallback it chooses, for an English law agreement, is [[US dollars]]. Just as French is the language of international diplomacy and English the language of international commerce, the greenback is the language of international money’s worth, so we suppose this makes sense.
 
Lastly, {{isda}} has taken advantage of none of the many redrafting opportunities it has had since 1994 to correct either of these irritations. The {{vmcsa}} and the {{nyvmcsa}} both take the same approach.

Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 June 2024

American hegemony

The 1994 NY CSA contemplates only US dollars, so the 2016 NY Law VM CSA is something of an olive branch to the remainder of the planet or sign that the American Empire is truly in a state of unstoppable decline, depending on how you look at it. The English law credit support annexes have always been more inclusive, allowing any number of foreign currencies to be the Base Currency, or Eligible Currencies. Laudable.

English law docs

Two interesting (lack of) design points here:

Firstly, the fallback for the {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} is specified in the Paragraph {{{{{1}}}|11}} election schedule and not the pre-printed definition of {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} inside the {{{1}}} itself. The election schedule is the bit you amend, so by the lights of the Document Design Subcommittee of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, you might expect your preprinted definition to say: The {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} is United States dollars unless specified otherwise in the Elections, and then your Elections schedule could say, “as per the Definitions section” or, if different, say, “Pounds sterling”.

Seeing “United States dollars unless specified here: Pounds Sterling,” it is submitted, would confuse someone not expecting it. Especially someone in a panic, who has just been sent a bad photocopy of a heavily amended fifteen-year-old ISDA and CSA of a counterparty whose credit is plummeting and told to quickly figure out how to close out this blessed agreement, with the head of risk breathing onionly down her neck. Why, she will wonder, didn’t it just say, “{{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}}: Pounds sterling?”

Why indeed.

Secondly, unlike the 1992 ISDA whose publication it quickly followed, the 1995 CSA does at least think about a fallback {{{{{1}}}|Base Currency}} for those who have forgotten to specify one. The fallback it chooses, for an English law agreement, is US dollars. Just as French is the language of international diplomacy and English the language of international commerce, the greenback is the language of international money’s worth, so we suppose this makes sense.