Interpretation - CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|csa|1|1995|1|2016}} | {{fullanat2|csa|1|1995|1|2016}} | ||
'''Nomenclature''': Being an annex to an {{isdama}}, references to the “{{isdaprov|Agreement}}” means that particular {{isdama}}; the “{{csaprov|Annex}}” is the {{tag|CSA}} and, if you were pedantic enough that you really felt the need to refer to it, the “{{isdaprov|Schedule}}” is the schedule to the {{isdama}}. | '''Nomenclature''': Being an annex to an {{isdama}}, references to the “{{isdaprov|Agreement}}” means that particular {{isdama}}; the “{{csaprov|Annex}}” is the {{tag|CSA}} and, if you were pedantic enough that you really felt the need to refer to it, the “{{isdaprov|Schedule}}” is the schedule to the {{isdama}}. | ||
Covered Transactions as a concept only arrives in the 2016 version. until then, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of Transactions are covered or not is to say something like: | |||
“ | |||
[SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining “Exposure” under the {{csa}}. | |||
” |
Revision as of 14:06, 15 December 2016
CSA Anatomy™
Paragraph 1. Interpretation
|
Nomenclature: Being an annex to an ISDA Master Agreement, references to the “Agreement” means that particular ISDA Master Agreement; the “Annex” is the CSA and, if you were pedantic enough that you really felt the need to refer to it, the “Schedule” is the schedule to the ISDA Master Agreement.
Covered Transactions as a concept only arrives in the 2016 version. until then, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of Transactions are covered or not is to say something like: “ [SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining “Exposure” under the 1995 CSA. ”