Template:M comp disc 1992 ISDA Specified Transaction: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:58, 24 September 2020

A Specified Transaction under the 1992 ISDA is, by the standards of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, monosyllabic to the point of being terse.

Under the 2002 ISDA, it is expressed with far more of the squad’s signature sense of derring-do and the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition:

Specifically to include things we have thunk of since 1992, such as futures, credit derivatives, repo, stock lending, weather derivatives,^[1] NDFs, transactions executed under terms of business; and
Generally to include similar transactions that are presently or in future become common in the financial markets — a neat a catch-all, designed to include any future pieces of financial wizardry (and/or mass destruction) that have not been thunk of just yet.

↑ Oh, look! Anyone remember Enron? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible? No?

Revision as of 11:57, 24 September 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 11:58, 24 September 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) (Replaced content with "{{isda Specified Transaction comp}}") Tag: Replaced
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{isda ~~5(a)(v) comm\|isdaprov~~}}		{{isda Specified Transaction comp}}

	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.