Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Note the charming contingency that {{icds}} allows that a counterparty might default under a credit assurance offered by someone else altogether. Before you even put your han..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Note the charming contingency that {{icds}} allows that a counterparty might default under a credit assurance offered by someone else altogether. | Note the charming contingency that {{icds}} allows that a counterparty might default under a credit assurance offered by someone else altogether. | ||
Before you even put your hand up: no, a [[Credit Support Annex]] between the two counterparties is ''not'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, at least under the English law construct: there it is a “{{isdaprov|Transaction}}” under the {{isdama}}. It is somewhat different with a {{1994csa}}, but even there the User Guide cautions against treating a direct swaap counterparty as a “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}” — the Credit Support Provider is meant to be a third party. | Before you even put your hand up: no, a [[Credit Support Annex]] between the two counterparties is ''not'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, at least under the English law construct: there it is a “{{isdaprov|Transaction}}” under the {{isdama}}. It is somewhat different with a {{1994csa}}, but even there the User Guide cautions against treating a direct swaap counterparty as a “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}” — the {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}} is meant to be a third party. | ||
But, but, but: here is an ''[[ontological]]'' difference between the mechanics of [[close out]] when it comes to a failure under a {{nycsa}} when compared to non-payment under a {{csa}}. A {{csa}} is a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}} and is ''not'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}. A failure to meet a [[margin call]] under a {{csa}} or any of its more modern English successors is therefore a {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}}; a failure to post under a {{nycsa}} is a Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(iii)}} credit support failure. | |||
Does this, in practical point of fact, make any difference at all? Is a 5(a)(i) Event of Default some preferable; more proper; having greater correctitude; a matter of better ''form''? | |||
As far as this old goat comprehends the world, it is not. | |||
Revision as of 17:32, 6 May 2021
Note the charming contingency that ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ allows that a counterparty might default under a credit assurance offered by someone else altogether.
Before you even put your hand up: no, a Credit Support Annex between the two counterparties is not a Credit Support Document, at least under the English law construct: there it is a “Transaction” under the ISDA Master Agreement. It is somewhat different with a 1994 NY CSA, but even there the User Guide cautions against treating a direct swaap counterparty as a “Credit Support Provider” — the Credit Support Provider is meant to be a third party.
But, but, but: here is an ontological difference between the mechanics of close out when it comes to a failure under a 1994 NY CSA when compared to non-payment under a 1995 CSA. A 1995 CSA is a Transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement and is not a Credit Support Document. A failure to meet a margin call under a 1995 CSA or any of its more modern English successors is therefore a Failure to Pay or Deliver under Section 5(a)(i); a failure to post under a 1994 NY CSA is a Section 5(a)(iii) credit support failure.
Does this, in practical point of fact, make any difference at all? Is a 5(a)(i) Event of Default some preferable; more proper; having greater correctitude; a matter of better form?
As far as this old goat comprehends the world, it is not.