Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | {{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
Note the 1992 version excludes actual Transactions under the ISDA itself. This is for the sensible reason that a default under an ISDA Transaction is covered by elsewhere in the ISDA (eg {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Obligation}} concepts, and it might lead to a perverse result if a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} was not otherwise an {{isdaprov|Event of default}} under any ISDA provision but the {{isdaprov|DUST}} provision, however unlikely that may be. | |||
The {{2002ma}} expands the basic definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], weather derivatives, [[NDF]]s, transactions executed under terms of business and other commodities or similar transactions that is presently or in future becomes common in the financial markets. | The {{2002ma}} expands the basic definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], weather derivatives, [[NDF]]s, transactions executed under terms of business and other commodities or similar transactions that is presently or in future becomes common in the financial markets. | ||
Revision as of 15:52, 9 December 2015
In gory detail
1992 ISDA |
2002 ISDA
NB - paragraph breaks do not appear in the printed form. |
Commentary
Note the 1992 version excludes actual Transactions under the ISDA itself. This is for the sensible reason that a default under an ISDA Transaction is covered by elsewhere in the ISDA (eg Failure to Pay or Deliver and Breach of Obligation concepts, and it might lead to a perverse result if a Transaction was not otherwise an Event of default under any ISDA provision but the DUST provision, however unlikely that may be.
The 2002 ISDA expands the basic definition of Specified Transaction to specifically include futures credit derivatives, repo, stock lending, weather derivatives, NDFs, transactions executed under terms of business and other commodities or similar transactions that is presently or in future becomes common in the financial markets.
Note it doesn't generally include contracts in the nature of borrowed money or indebtedness (these are generally picked up under Cross Default which is designed to catch them) but it because Cross Default contemplates a Threshold Amount and DUST doesn't, this leads to an odd gap:
A (sub Threshold Amount) default under Specified Indebtedness between the two contractual parties would not entitle the unaffacted party to close out, but a default under any other derivative transaction (as dfefined in Specified Transaction) would. Kind of counterintuitive.