Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(iii): 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: | ||
Not generally stipulated as an {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}} because firstly it would only be relevant in a [[physically-settled]] equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party. | [[Failure to Deliver - Equity Derivatives Provision|Not]] generally stipulated as an {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}} because firstly it would only be relevant in a [[physically-settled]] equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party. | ||
You may want to head over to {{eqderivprov|Consequences of Failure to Deliver}} under {{eqderivprov|12.9(b)(ii)}}, where you will discover that {{icds}} have ploughed their own long, lonely, weird furrow about how to resolve settlement failures instead of copying what the cash equity markets and stock lending markets do. They’re fun like that, are [[the ’squad]]. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:56, 19 May 2022
Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party.
You may want to head over to Consequences of Failure to Deliver under 12.9(b)(ii), where you will discover that ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ have ploughed their own long, lonely, weird furrow about how to resolve settlement failures instead of copying what the cash equity markets and stock lending markets do. They’re fun like that, are the ’squad.