Failure to pay: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[ | *[[Failure to deliver]] | ||
*{{isdaprov|Failure to pay}} | *[[Event of default]] | ||
*{{isdaprov|Failure to pay}} under the {{isda}} | |||
*{{gmslaprov|Failure to pay}} under the {{gmsla}}, {{gmslaprov|mini close-out}} and all that good stuff. | *{{gmslaprov|Failure to pay or deliver}} under the {{gmsla}}, {{gmslaprov|mini close-out}} and all that good stuff. |
Revision as of 12:08, 27 June 2019
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
Failure to pay is the classic event of default in a financial contract. There is no more profound indication that you may be unable to honour your obligations to pay a sum of money that the fact you have actually not done so. Almost all close-outs will derive from some kind of failure to pay or insolvency — but don’t let that knowledge stop your credit department insisting on a four month negotiation about ratings downgrade triggers.
Contrast with a failure to deliver which in some contracts[1] is tantamount in outrage to a failure to pay, but in others is just one of those things that we accept, sort out, and move on with. For example, stock lending transactions, where a failure to lend Securities, or return Securities or Collateral, might be just one of those things: the result of ordinary market fluctuations, where settlement failures are common, and one often relies on someone else — or a chain of someone elses — settling the necessary Securities into you so you can settle them to your loan counterparty.
See also
- Failure to deliver
- Event of default
- Failure to pay under the ISDA
- Failure to pay or deliver under the 2010 GMSLA, mini close-out and all that good stuff.
- ↑ eg, and ISDA Master Agreement.