Template:M comp disc 1992 ISDA Specified Transaction: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Replaced content with "{{isda Specified Transaction comp}}"
Tag: Replaced
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{isda 5(a)(v) comm|isdaprov}}
{{isda Specified Transaction comp}}
 
The [[mini closeout]] point, as we discuss in the commentary below, is technically correct but should have led to a ''simplification'' of the DUST provision, rather than a ''convolution'' of it. I know what you’re thinking, and you’re right: like ''that'' was ever going to happen.

Latest revision as of 11:58, 24 September 2020

A Specified Transaction under the 1992 ISDA is, by the standards of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, monosyllabic to the point of being terse. But that is as nothing compared to the 1987 ISDA, which wasn’t even called a Specified Transaction, but was just a Specified Swap.

Under the 2002 ISDA, it is expressed with far more of the squad’s signature sense of derring-do and the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition:

  1. Oh, look! Anyone remember Enron? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible? No?