Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Searching out embedded templates in CDD summ Tag: Reverted |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Searching out embedded templates in CDD summ Tag: Manual revert |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[4.2 - Credit Derivatives Provision|Differences]] with Section | [[4.2 - Credit Derivatives Provision|Differences]] with Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(vii)}}: | ||
*Doesn’t cover | *Doesn’t cover {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private [[OTC]] bilateral trading agreement, like an {{isdama}} which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers [[credit derivative]]s) nor guarantors (except where the {{cddprov|Reference Entity}} is itself the guarantor). A [[CDS]] being, per the [[Potts opinion]], a ''derivative'' of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the {{cddprov|Buyer}} has no necessary “[[insurable interest]]”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, [[credit support provider]]s and so on doesn’t come into it. | ||
*Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”. | *Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”. | ||
*No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions. | *No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:33, 20 May 2023
Differences with Section 5(a)(vii):
- Doesn’t cover Credit Support Providers or Specified Entities (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private OTC bilateral trading agreement, like an ISDA Master Agreement which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers credit derivatives) nor guarantors (except where the Reference Entity is itself the guarantor). A CDS being, per the Potts opinion, a derivative of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the Buyer has no necessary “insurable interest”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, credit support providers and so on doesn’t come into it.
- Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “fair large and liberal”.
- No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.