Template:Csa Exposure comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Ancient v Modern==== | ====Ancient v Modern==== | ||
[[ | The difference between the Ancient and Modern versions of the CSA is that the [[OG CSA]]s assume you are trading under a {{1992ma}}, therefore using the {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} valuation technique — which figures, since the {{2002ma}} with its {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} methodology hadn’t then been invented — whereas the [[Modern CSA]]s | ||
contemplate you having a ''either'' a {{1992ma}} ''or'' a {{2002ma}} and provides for them in the alternative. | |||
Here is a {{diff|36046|36045}} between the {{1995csa}} and the {{2016csa}} | Here is a {{diff|36046|36045}} between the {{1995csa}} and the {{2016csa}} | ||
==== | ====NY v English law==== | ||
The {{nyvmcsa}} tracks the {{vmcsa}} closely with two curious exceptions: Firstly, when imagining its [[hypothetical]] termination of all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s it doesn’t explicitly carve out the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} constituted by the {{nyvmcsa}} itself — which is odd, because if you were treating it as a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} to be hypothetically included, you necessarily get a value of zero, since its value should be the exact negative of whatever the net mark-to-market value of all the other {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s are — and secondly it does not [[hypothetical]]ly suppose that the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} is the {{isdaprov|Unaffected Party}}, thereby getting to be in the driver’s seat when constructing the necessary valuations. | |||
The {{nyvmcsa}} tracks the {{vmcsa}} closely with two curious exceptions: Firstly, when imagining its [[hypothetical]] termination of all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s it doesn’t explicitly carve out the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} constituted by the {{nyvmcsa}} itself — which is odd, because if you were treating it as a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} to be hypothetically included, you necessarily get a value of zero, since its value should be the exact negative of whatever the net mark-to-market value of all the other {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s are — and secondly it does not [[ | |||
{{ | The reason you don’t have to except a {{nyvmcsa}} from hypothetical termination is buried deep in its earthen [[Ontology|ontological]] root system. It is not a Transaction. This is all discussed in the {{{{{1}}}|Preamble}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:44, 19 June 2024
Ancient v Modern
The difference between the Ancient and Modern versions of the CSA is that the OG CSAs assume you are trading under a 1992 ISDA, therefore using the Market Quotation valuation technique — which figures, since the 2002 ISDA with its Close-out Amount methodology hadn’t then been invented — whereas the Modern CSAs contemplate you having a either a 1992 ISDA or a 2002 ISDA and provides for them in the alternative.
Here is a comparison between the 1995 CSA and the 2016 VM CSA
NY v English law
The 2016 NY Law VM CSA tracks the 2016 VM CSA closely with two curious exceptions: Firstly, when imagining its hypothetical termination of all Transactions it doesn’t explicitly carve out the Transaction constituted by the 2016 NY Law VM CSA itself — which is odd, because if you were treating it as a Transaction to be hypothetically included, you necessarily get a value of zero, since its value should be the exact negative of whatever the net mark-to-market value of all the other Transactions are — and secondly it does not hypothetically suppose that the Secured Party is the Unaffected Party, thereby getting to be in the driver’s seat when constructing the necessary valuations.
The reason you don’t have to except a 2016 NY Law VM CSA from hypothetical termination is buried deep in its earthen ontological root system. It is not a Transaction. This is all discussed in the {{{{{1}}}|Preamble}}.