Interpretation - CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{csaanat|1|1995}}{{csadiff | {{csaanat|1|1995}}{{csadiff 1}} | ||
'''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}}. | ||
Revision as of 14:46, 30 December 2019
ISDA 1995 English Law Credit Support Annex
Paragraph 1. Interpretation
|
1995 CSA and 2016 VM CSA: click for comparison
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 VM CSA. 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. ”