83,229
edits
Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 5(a)(v): Difference between revisions
Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 5(a)(v) (view source)
Revision as of 09:56, 24 September 2020
, 24 September 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Two key differences between the {{1992ma}} {{isda92prov|DUST}} and the {{2002ma}} {{isdaprov|DUST}}: The {{2002ma}} version is updated to exclude “defaults” which qualify...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Two key differences between the {{1992ma}} {{isda92prov|DUST}} and the {{2002ma}} {{isdaprov|DUST}}: The {{2002ma}} version is updated to exclude “defaults” which qualify as mini closeouts under stock loan documentation — a concept which the stock loan market invented after the {{1992ma}} was published, so you can’t really blame {{icds}} for overlooking it at first — as these tend to arise from normal market settlement failures and are not credit-driven, and secondly the criteria for something to count as a repudiation are stiffened to require written evidence from the repudiating party. The latter of these really more am articulation of common sense, for it would be a brave risk officer indeed who closed out an {{isdama}} based on an oral communication, or the proverbial extended middle finger, for which she could not subsequently produce in fairly compelling evidence. But still. | Two key differences between the {{1992ma}} {{isda92prov|DUST}} and the {{2002ma}} {{isdaprov|DUST}}: The {{2002ma}} version is updated to exclude “defaults” which qualify as mini closeouts under stock loan documentation — a concept which the stock loan market invented after the {{1992ma}} was published, so you can’t really blame {{icds}} for overlooking it at first — as these tend to arise from normal market settlement failures and are not credit-driven, and secondly the criteria for something to count as a repudiation are stiffened to require written evidence from the repudiating party. The latter of these really more am articulation of common sense, for it would be a brave risk officer indeed who closed out an {{isdama}} based on an oral communication, or the proverbial extended middle finger, for which she could not subsequently produce in fairly compelling evidence. But still. | ||
The [[mini closeout]] point, as we discuss in the commentary below, is technically correct but should have led to a ''simplification'' of the DUST provision, rather than a ''convolution'' of it. I know what you’re thinking, and | The [[mini closeout]] point, as we discuss in the commentary below, is technically correct but should have led to a ''simplification'' of the DUST provision, rather than a ''convolution'' of it. I know what you’re thinking, and you’re right: like ''that'' was ever going to happen. | ||