Template:Isda Specified Entity summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is so (~ cough ~) important that it is literally the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.  
A {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is any affiliate of a counterparty to an {{isdama}} which is designated in the relevant Schedule.


Painstakingly set out, separately for {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} (namely {{{{{1}}}|DUST}} (Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(v)}}), {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} (Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(vi)}}) and {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} (Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(vii)}}) and the one {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} (Credit Event Upon Merger (Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(v)}}  — as if you would want different Affiliates to trigger this event depending on precisely ''how'' they cork-screwed into the side of a hill), and jointly for the “{{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}}” representation in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(c)}} of the {{2002ma}}.
It is relevant to the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} and {{{{{1}}}|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified.


A {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is any affiliate (or, in theory at any rate, even a non-affiliate, if your risk officer is a total cretin) of a counterparty to an {{isdama}} which is designated in the relevant Schedule.
It is so (~ cough ~) important that it is, literally, the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.  


It is relevant to the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} and {{{{{1}}}|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified.
The same concept in both versions of the {{isdama}} only with different clause numberings. {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is relevant to:
*{{{{{1}}}|DUST}}
*{{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}
*{{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}
*{{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}
And of course the {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} representation. Let’s not forget that.


===Nominating {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}} for yourself under {{isdaprov|DUST}} has its upsides===
Each party designates its Specified Entities for each of these events in Part 1(a) of the Schedule, which gives the Schedule its familiar layout:
For the most part, allowing any of your friends or relations to be named as your {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} widens the range of vicissitudes of which you may fall foul, and therefore [[inure]]s solely for the benefit of your counterparty. In otherwords, if you can get away with it, don’t agree to name any of your affiliates as {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}}.
{{subtableflex|47|
{{ISDA Master Agreement 2002 Schedule Part 1(a)}} }}


There is one exception, and that is Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}} {{isdaprov|Default Under Specified Transaction}}).  
Now, why would anyone want different Affiliates to trigger this a {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} depending precisely upon ''how'' they cork-screwed into the side of a hill? Well, there is one reason where it might make a big difference when it comes to {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}, and we will pick that up in the premium section. But generally — and even in that case, really — in our time of variation margin it really ought not to be the thing that is bringing down your {{isdama}}.


of those provisions also to include defaults ''by'' the other side (and its {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}}) under their contracts with ''your'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}} — so there ''is'' some benefit to naming ''your'' [[affiliates]], friends and relations as {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}}. But given how unlikely you are to be actually monitoring how a counterparty performs with an affiliate, it’s more of a false comfort than a real one.
Note it also pops up as relevant in the {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}}” representation in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(c)}} of the {{2002ma}}.

Latest revision as of 16:22, 2 January 2024

A {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is any affiliate of a counterparty to an ISDA Master Agreement which is designated in the relevant Schedule.

It is relevant to the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} and {{{{{1}}}|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified.

It is so (~ cough ~) important that it is, literally, the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.

The same concept in both versions of the ISDA Master Agreement only with different clause numberings. {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is relevant to:

  • {{{{{1}}}|DUST}}
  • {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}
  • {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}
  • {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}

And of course the {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} representation. Let’s not forget that.

Each party designates its Specified Entities for each of these events in Part 1(a) of the Schedule, which gives the Schedule its familiar layout:

(a)Specified Entity” means in relation to Party A for the purpose of:―

Section 5(a)(v), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(a)(vi), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(a)(vii), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(b)(v), [SPECIFY].

and in relation to Party B for the purpose of:―

Section 5(a)(v), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(a)(vi), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(a)(vii), [SPECIFY].
Section 5(b)(v), [SPECIFY].

Now, why would anyone want different Affiliates to trigger this a {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} depending precisely upon how they cork-screwed into the side of a hill? Well, there is one reason where it might make a big difference when it comes to {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}, and we will pick that up in the premium section. But generally — and even in that case, really — in our time of variation margin it really ought not to be the thing that is bringing down your ISDA Master Agreement.

Note it also pops up as relevant in the “{{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}}” representation in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(c)}} of the 2002 ISDA.