Failure to pay Collateral - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{nuts|GMSLA|10.1(a)}} | {{nuts|GMSLA|10.1(a)}} | ||
===Commentary=== | ===Commentary=== | ||
There are great | There are great tales of worthy fellows around the market trying to tweak this provision just in case, by oversight, it doesn't capture a failure to ''redeliver'' cash or collateral. As if life weren't trying enough as it is. | ||
If you do need an articulate reason, you could venture that it comes down to the explanation below on the meaning of "equivalent" in the {{2010gmsla}}. Since it the {{2010gmsla}} is a outright title transfer agreement, and not really a loan, nothing is ever "repaid" or "redelivered". All obligations are primary obligations of payment and delivery. | |||
If you need a more visceral argument (sometimes useful for more pointy-headed negotiators) try " | If you need a more visceral argument (sometimes useful for more pointy-headed negotiators) try this one: "Get a life". | ||
===GMSLA Equivalence=== | ===GMSLA Equivalence=== | ||
Revision as of 18:46, 17 December 2015
Commentary
10.1(a) in a Nutshell™ (GMSLA edition)
- 10.1(a) Failure to Deliver: The failure, when required under Paragraph 5, of:
- (i) either party to pay or repay Cash Collateral; or
- (ii) the Borrower to deliver any other Collateral to the Lender;
Commentary
There are great tales of worthy fellows around the market trying to tweak this provision just in case, by oversight, it doesn't capture a failure to redeliver cash or collateral. As if life weren't trying enough as it is.
If you do need an articulate reason, you could venture that it comes down to the explanation below on the meaning of "equivalent" in the 2010 GMSLA. Since it the 2010 GMSLA is a outright title transfer agreement, and not really a loan, nothing is ever "repaid" or "redelivered". All obligations are primary obligations of payment and delivery.
If you need a more visceral argument (sometimes useful for more pointy-headed negotiators) try this one: "Get a life".
GMSLA Equivalence
Techy linguistic aside: Now here’s a funny thing. In the 2000 GMSLA, there were four defined terms relating to the Securities and Collateral that pass between the parties to a stock loan, all of them nouns:
But under the 2010 GMSLA, there are just three; two shorter nouns and an adjective:
This means you can move from the utterly tiring “Securities, Collateral, Equivalent Securities or Equivalent Collateral” which is fire-hosed throughout the 2000 GMSLA to the less offensive “Securities, Collateral or their Equivalents” in the 2010 GMSLA.[1]
See Also
update to anat|gmsla
|
Navigation 2018 Pledge GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Schedule · Agency Annex Stock lending agreement comparison: Includes navigation for the 2000 GMSLA and the 1995 OSLA |
2010 GMSLA: Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | GMLSA legal code | GMSLA Netting
Pledge GMSLA: Hard copy (ISLA) · Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext |
1995 OSLA: OSLA wikitext | OSLA in a nutshell | GMSLA/PGMSLA/OSLA clause comparison table
From Our Friends On The Internet: Guide to equity finance | ISLA’s guide to securities lending for regulators and policy makers
- ↑ Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.