Template:Isda 5(a)(i) summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the {{isdama}}: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the [[grace period]] expires. The [[grace period]] for a {{2002ma}} is one {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}; shorter than the three {{isda92prov|Local Business Day}}s in the {{1992ma}}. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded.
{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the {{isdama}}: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the [[grace period]] expires. The [[grace period]] for a {{2002ma}} is one {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}; shorter than the three {{isda92prov|Local Business Day}}s in the {{1992ma}}. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded.


There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only {{nycsa}} and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of {{icds}} when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see.  
There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only {{nycsa}} and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of {{icds}} when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see.  


Funny old world we live in.
Funny old world we live in.

Latest revision as of 15:31, 26 December 2023

{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} of the ISDA Master Agreement: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the grace period expires. The grace period for a 2002 ISDA is one Local Business Day; shorter than the three Local Business Days in the 1992 ISDA. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded.

There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only 1994 NY CSA and then designating it as a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} (against the hopes and dreams of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(i)}} {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see.

Funny old world we live in.