Template:Csa Scope of this Annex summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Covered Transaction==== | ====Covered Transaction==== | ||
As a concept, “{{{{{1}}}|Covered Transaction}}” only arrived in the {{vmcsa}}, in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|1(b)}}. It is in the {{nyvmcsa}}, too, in Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|1(c)}}. | As a concept, “{{{{{1}}}|Covered Transaction}}” only arrived in the {{vmcsa}}, in Paragraph {{vmcsaprov|1(b)}}. It is in the {{nyvmcsa}}, too, in Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|1(c)}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 31 August 2023
Covered Transaction
As a concept, “{{{{{1}}}|Covered Transaction}}” only arrived in the 2016 VM CSA, in Paragraph 1(b). It is in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA, too, in Paragraph 1(c).
In the 1990s versions of the CSA, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of Transactions is covered or not is to say something like:
“[SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining “Exposure” under the Credit Support Annex.”
But what does “Other CSA” mean?
This “Other CSA” talk has in mind those who, in 2016, wished to “grandfather” Transactions which were already live when the regulatory margin obligations came into force, but which therefore preceded it and were out of scope for it.
Cue a monstrously painful dual-CSA regime where new transactions were margined under a new, regulatory margin-compliant 2016 VM CSA, and old ones were allowed to roll off on the clapped-out (but somehow better, right?) “other” 1995 CSA.
No doubt this made sound commercial sense in 2016. But a few years later, for all except those with 30-year inflation swaps on the books, all this “Other CSA” chat is just barnacle-encrusted confusion for everyone.