Credit Support Provider - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Text replace - "{{isdaanatomy}}" to "{{anat|isda}}"
No edit summary
Tag: Manual revert
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Should a Party to the document, where there is a CSA, be described as a "Credit Support Provider"?
{{nman|isda|2002|Credit Support Provider}}
 
'''No''', sayeth the Users' Guide to the {{1994csa}}:
 
{{quote|"Parties to an {{isdama}} should not, however, be identified as Credit Support Providers with respect to
the Annex, as such term is intended only to apply to third parties"}}
 
{{anat|isda}}

Latest revision as of 15:27, 16 July 2024

2002 ISDA Master Agreement

A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™

Credit Support Provider in a Nutshell

The JC’s Nutshell summary of this term has moved uptown to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get it here. Sign up at Substack. You can even ask questions! Ask about it here.

Original text

Credit Support Provider” has the meaning specified in the Schedule.

See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
The Varieties of ISDA Experience
Subject 2002 (wikitext) 1992 (wikitext) 1987 (wikitext)
Preamble Pre Pre Pre
Interpretation 1 1 1
Obligns/Payment 2 2 2
Representations 3 3 3
Agreements 4 4 4
EODs & Term Events 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSTCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityFMTax EventTEUMCEUMATE 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSTCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityTax EventTEUMCEUMATE 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSSCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityTax EventTEUMCEUM
Early Termination 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculations; Payment DatePayments on ETSet-off 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculationsPayments on ETSet-off 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculationsPayments on ET
Transfer 7 7 7
Contractual Currency 8 8 8
Miscellaneous 9 9 9
Offices; Multibranch Parties 10 10 10
Expenses 11 11 11
Notices 12 12 12
Governing Law 13 13 13
Definitions 14 14 14
Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule
Termination Provisions Part 1 Part 1 Part 1
Tax Representations Part 2 Part 2 Part 2
Documents for Delivery Part 3 Part 3 Part 3
Miscellaneous Part 4 Part 4 Part 4
Other Provisions Part 5 Part 5 Part 5

Resources and Navigation

Index: Click to expand:

Comparisons

The concept dates from the 1992 ISDA — while Credit Support Document got a run out in the 1987 ISDA, Credit Support Document did not — but, we think, the terminology creates far more confusion than it needed to, and maybe the ancient ninja squad of the Eighties was on to something.

Basics

A Credit Support Provider is basically a guarantor: a third party who stands being the obligations of a counterparty to the ISDA Master Agreement. Usually this is someone providing an all obligations guarantee or a standby letter of credit, but on rare occasions — very rare, usually involving espievies — might be a third party directly posting credit support to the other party under a Credit Support Document. In any case it is not a direct counterparty to the ISDA Master Agreement itself, whether or not the CSA counts as a Credit Support Document.

Given that a 1995 CSA is not a Credit Support Document at all, but a Transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement, a party to it is obviously not a Credit Support Provider.

A 1994 NY CSA, on the other hand, is a Credit Support Document though. So should a Party to the ISDA Master Agreement, where there is a 1994 NY CSA, be described as a “Credit Support Provider"?

No, sayeth the User’s Guide to the 1994 NY CSA:

“Parties to an ISDA Master Agreement should not, however, be identified as Credit Support Providers with respect to the Annex, as such term is intended only to apply to third parties.”

the Users’ Guide to the 2002 ISDA is similarly emphatically vague:

“The meaning of “Credit Support Provider” ... should apply to any person or entity (other than either party) providing, or a party to, a Credit Support Document delivered on behalf of a particular party.”

This means that a New York Law CSA — which is not a Transaction under the ISDA architecture, remember, is a Credit Support Document, but the person providing Credit Support under it — is not a “Credit Support Provider”?

Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
  • JC’s “nutshell” summary of the clause
  • Background reading and long-form essays
  • The multiple uses of “credit support”: A brief think-piece on whether it really was a good idea to use the same descriptor — “Credit Support” — to describe three things (a guarantor, a collateral framework, and the cash and assets posted under it) which are economically related, but ontologically quite different.

See also

References