Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(iii): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled swap, and for a host of reasons a physicsally sett..."
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled swap, and for a host of reasons a physicsally settled synthetic instrument is a bit of a contradiction in terms — and in any case a settlement failure due to illiquidity is a racingly certain prospect in certain stock lines, and is more the rule than the exception in others, and is generally dealt with through buy-ins.
Not generally stipulated as an {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}} because firstly it would only be relevant in a [[physically-settled]] equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party.

Revision as of 14:13, 19 May 2022

Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party.