|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| There are some significant differences here, as you might expect, since the philosophical unpinning of what is going on is profoundly different, even if the commercial outcome is the same. Think VHS and Betamax. The [[JC]]’s deltaview is on the panel on the right, but in a nutshell under the {{pgmsla}}:
| | {{M comp disc GMSLA 11}} |
| *Only the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s redelivery payments are accelerated, since by the theory of the game, the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} never gets possession of the collateral and is not therefore in a position ''to'' redeliver it.
| |
| *There’s less fog and confusion because {{icmacds}} in their wisdom removed {{gmslaprov|Letters of Credit}} as a form of eligible {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} from teh {{pgmsla}}
| |
| *The reckoning of what is due under Paragraph {{pgmslaprov|11.2(b)}} — setting off all sums owed by one party against all sums owed by the other — is less fraught, and will always be a net payable back to the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} (because the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} never transferred title to the pledged {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} in the first place)
| |
| *There is no concept in the{{pgmsla}} of “{{pgmslaprov|Deliverable Securities}}” or “{{pgmslaprov|Receivable Securities}}”, seeing as there will not always be a receiver and a deliverer, so they don’t come into the frame for the reckoning of the {{pgmslaprov|Default Market Value}} in the same way.
| |