Template:Isda 5(a)(i) summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the {{isdama}}: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the [[grace period]] expires. The [[grace period]] for a {{2002ma}} is one {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}; shorter than the three {{isda92prov|Local Business Day}}s in the {{1992ma}}. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded. | {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the {{isdama}}: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the [[grace period]] expires. The [[grace period]] for a {{2002ma}} is one {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}; shorter than the three {{isda92prov|Local Business Day}}s in the {{1992ma}}. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded. | ||
There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only {{nycsa}} and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of {{icds}} when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see. | There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only {{nycsa}} and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of {{icds}} when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see. | ||
Funny old world we live in. | Funny old world we live in. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 26 December 2023
{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the ISDA Master Agreement: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the grace period expires. The grace period for a 2002 ISDA is one Local Business Day; shorter than the three Local Business Days in the 1992 ISDA. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded.
There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only 1994 NY CSA and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see.
Funny old world we live in.