Custodian - NY CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) updated to Nycsamanual |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|csa|1994|Custodian Provision}} |
Latest revision as of 15:06, 17 June 2024
ISDA 1994 New York Law Credit Support Annex
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Custodian Provision in a Nutshell™
Original text
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
More information on what this Custodian chap actually does at Holding and Using Posted Collateral. Neither of the title transfer CSAs have a Custodian, one not being needed.
Basics
A key difference between the security interest CSA and the title transfer CSA is that where you are pretending to hold subject to some security, the Pledgor might be inclined to want to deliver the credit support to a Custodian or escrow agent of some kind on the Secured Party’s behalf, rather than delivering outright to the Secured Party who might, you know, lose the collateral or something.
A party to a title transfer CSA does not have this anxiousness, seeing as the Transferee gets transferred the Credit Support outright and is allowed to lose it, as long as it delivers back something similar.
As long as we are talking OG CSAs or VM CSAs, this is all rather moot: in practice, the Transferee/Secured Party will have a right to rehypothecate any Posted Credit Support, whereupon the Secured Party becomes, effectively a debtor for that Credit Support return obligation, and not a Secured Party at all. That is, exactly like a Transferee under a title transfer CSA.
That being the case, the Custodian provision is almost always a dead letter. Quietly, I find myself wondering why I am even bothering to write all this. Even more so since the VM CSA has, for the largest part, transmogrified itself into an all-cash arrangement: you can’t custody cash: it immediately creates a debt obligation. This is deep financial lore.
If we are talking 2018 Regulatory IM CSA, on the other hand, it is a different story: Eligible Credit Support under that regime is inevitably non-cash, there is generally no right of rehypothecation, and any such Posted Credit Support would be held by a third-party custodian or escrow agent. However, if you were doing that you would be under the 2018 English law IM CSD form. So the Custodian provision remains all but a dead letter in the security interest CSAs.
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👇
|