Security financial collateral arrangement: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|security}} | {{a|security|}}A [[security financial collateral arrangement]] — to specialists, an “'''[[SFCA]]'''” — is, well, it’s ''not'' a [[title transfer financial collateral arrangement]] (“'''[[TTCA]]'''”), but rather one where [[collateral]] is transferred by way of possession only, where the receiver has a [[security interest]] and may even have [[legal title]] but down not have [[beneficial ownership]] of the asset in question ... buuuuuut if [[rehypothecation]] is allowed, may be able to sell it anyway. Confused? Don’t be. Well, ''do'' be, but don’t feel ashamed about it. All is explained in our article on the [[Financial Collateral Directive]]. And, if not in that one, in our section on [[cognitive dissonance]]. | ||
Fly, you fools! | Fly, you fools! | ||
Latest revision as of 08:14, 7 April 2020
|
A word about credit risk mitigation
|
A security financial collateral arrangement — to specialists, an “SFCA” — is, well, it’s not a title transfer financial collateral arrangement (“TTCA”), but rather one where collateral is transferred by way of possession only, where the receiver has a security interest and may even have legal title but down not have beneficial ownership of the asset in question ... buuuuuut if rehypothecation is allowed, may be able to sell it anyway. Confused? Don’t be. Well, do be, but don’t feel ashamed about it. All is explained in our article on the Financial Collateral Directive. And, if not in that one, in our section on cognitive dissonance.
Fly, you fools!
Or, check out our NY law Variation Margin CSA Anatomy.
But, really, you should fly. Fools.