Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2: Difference between revisions

Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2 (view source)

Revision as of 07:03, 10 May 2023

372 bytes added , 10 May 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[4.2 - Credit Derivatives Provision|Differences]] with Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(vii)}}:
-*Doesn’t cover {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private [[OTC]] bilateral trading agreement, like an {{isdama}} which, being a private contract is not naturally thee kind of thing that triggers [[credit derivative]]s) nor {{cddprov|guarantor}}s (but that is converted elsewhere, directly).
+*Doesn’t cover {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private [[OTC]] bilateral trading agreement, like an {{isdama}} which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers [[credit derivative]]s) nor guarantors (except where the {{cddprov|Reference Entity}} is itself the guarantor). A [[CDS]] being, per the [[Potts opinion]], a ''derivative'' of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the {{cddprov|Buyer}} has no necessary “[[insurable interest]]”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, [[credit support provider]]s and so on doesn’t come into it.
 *Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”.
 *No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.