Scope of this Annex and the Other CSA - CSA Provision: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
===Yes, the drafting’s magic, isn’t it?===
===Yes, the drafting’s magic, isn’t it?===
In the year of our Lord 2016, it is gratifying to see that the good people of {{tag|ISDA}} and their friends, relations, cherubim and seraphin, gog and magog etc., are all still as fearful of the language they learned at their mothers' knees as ever. “[[If any]]” makes four appearances in an eight line clause which doesn’t say much in the first place.
In the year of our Lord 2016, it is gratifying to see that the good people of {{tag|ISDA}} and their friends, relations, cherubim and seraphin, gog and magog etc., are all still as fearful of the language they learned at their mothers' knees as ever. “[[If any]]” makes four appearances in an eight line clause which doesn’t say much in the first place.
===But what does it mean?===
{{Other CSA commentary}}
This seems to be contemplating those who wished to “[[grandfather]]” {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s which were already on foot at the time the [[regulatory margin]] obligation came into force, but which therefore preceded it and were out of scope for it. Cue a monstrously painful ''dual''-CSA regime where new transactions were margined under a new, [[regulatory margin]]-compliant {{2016csa}}, and old ones were allowed to roll off on the clapped out (but somehow better'', right?) {{1995csa}}.
 
No doubt this made sound commercial sense in 2015, a few years later, for all bar those with 30 year inflation swaps on the books, all this {{csaprov|Other CSA}} chat is just barnacle-encrusted codified confusion for everyone.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*{{csaprov|Other CSA}}
*{{csaprov|Other CSA}}