Template:Ny csa 6(c) summ: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Ny csa 6(c) summ (view source)

Revision as of 15:36, 15 June 2020

32 bytes added , 15 June 2020

→‎Rehypothecation in the {{{{{1}}}}}

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,357

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===Rehypothecation in the {{{{{1}}}}}===
-This is the classic part of your [[security interest]] {{{{{1}}}}} that converts it into a [[title transfer]] CSA, meaning — cough, as with much [[New York law]] frippery — that you might as well not bother with calling this a [[pledge]] or [[security interest]] in the first place.
+Paragraph {{{{{1}}}prov|6(c)}} is the classic part of your [[security interest]] {{{{{1}}}}} that converts it into a [[title transfer]] CSA, meaning — cough, as with much [[New York law]] frippery — that you might as well not bother with calling this a [[pledge]] or [[security interest]] in the first place.
 So I give my asset to you, right, carefully only [[Pledge|pledging]] it as [[Security interest|security]] for my [[indebtedness]] to you, and protect myself from your [[credit risk]] because I ''retain [[beneficial ownership]]'' of the asset. It is mine, not yours, and should you explode into a thousand points of light, then, once I have settled my trading account with your administrator, I can have it back.
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Oh, what sad times we live in.
-Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}prov|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though if you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t hasve to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence.
+Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}prov|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though in fact you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t hasve to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence.
-But anyway
+But anyway.