From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{{{{1}}}|DUST}} has been expanded in five significant ways by the {{2002ma}}: | | {{{{{1}}}|DUST}} has been expanded in five significant ways by the {{2002ma}}. See the summary and general sections for details. |
| *'''[[mini-closeout]] carveout''': Defaults require the [[acceleration]] of just ''the'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}} in question (for ''general'' defaults) but off ''all'' outstanding transactions under the relevant [[master agreement]] (for ''[[delivery]]'' defaults). This change was made with [[mini-close-out]] under [[repo]]s and [[stock loan]]s in mind — a concept which the stock loan market invented after the {{1992ma}} was published, so you can’t really blame {{icds}} for overlooking it at first — where delivery failures under are common and do not of themselves indicate weakness in the {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}}’s creditworthiness.
| |
| *'''Credit support failures covered''': {{isdaprov|DUST}} under the {{2002ma}} can be triggered by default under a [[credit support arrangement]] relating to a {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}. These weren’t included for the {{1992isda}} {{isda92prov|DUST}}.
| |
| *'''Shortened [[cure period]]''': The [[cure period]] for a failure to make a final or early termination payment ona {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}} has been reduced from three days to one.
| |
| *'''[[Repudiation]] evidence''': [[Repudiation]] was modified in two significant ways:
| |
| :*The phrase “or challenges the validity of” was added after “disaffirms, disclaims, repudiates or rejects” to reduce ambiguity as to whether a party’s action constitutes a repudiation; and
| |
| :*to stiffen the criteria for something to count as a [[repudiation]] so as to require [[In writing|written evidence]] from the repudiating party of its [[extended middle finger]]. This is really an articulation of common sense, for it would be a brave risk officer indeed who closed out an {{isdama}} based on an oral communication, or the [[proverbial extended middle finger]], for which she could not subsequently produce in fairly compelling evidence. But still.
| |
| *'''Widened definition of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}''': The “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}” concept has been broadened to include additional transaction types such as repos, and to include a catchall clause designed to include any future derivative products that have not been thought of yet.
| |
Latest revision as of 17:08, 25 December 2023
{{{{{1}}}|DUST}} has been expanded in five significant ways by the 2002 ISDA. See the summary and general sections for details.