Template:Isda Specified Transaction comp: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
A {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} under the {{1992ma}} is, by the standards of {{icds}}, monosyllabic to the point of being terse. Under the {{2002ma}} it is expressed with far more of [[the squad]]’s signature sense of the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition to specifically include [[futures]], [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], [[weather derivative]]s,<ref>Oh, look! Anyone remember {{tag|Enron}}? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible? No?</ref>  [[NDF]]s, transactions executed under [[terms of business]] ...  
A {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} under the {{1992ma}} is, by the standards of {{icds}}, monosyllabic to the point of being terse.  


And similar transactions that are presently or in future become common in the financial markets; a neat a catchall clause designed to include any future pieces of financial wizardry ([[and/or]] [[Financial weapons of mass destruction|mass destruction]]) that have not been thought of yet.
Under the {{2002ma}}, it is expressed with far more of [[the squad]]’s signature sense of derring-do and the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition:
*''Specifically'' to include things we have thunk of since 1992, such as [[futures]], [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], [[weather derivative]]s,<ref>Oh, look! Anyone remember {{tag|Enron}}? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible? No?</ref>  [[NDF]]s, transactions executed under [[terms of business]]; and
*''Generally'' to include similar transactions that are presently or in future become common in the financial markets a neat a catch-all, designed to include any future pieces of financial wizardry ([[and/or]] [[Financial weapons of mass destruction|mass destruction]]) that have not been thunk of just yet.

Revision as of 12:06, 24 September 2020

A Specified Transaction under the 1992 ISDA is, by the standards of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, monosyllabic to the point of being terse.

Under the 2002 ISDA, it is expressed with far more of the squad’s signature sense of derring-do and the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition:

  1. Oh, look! Anyone remember Enron? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible? No?