Template:Credit support annex as a credit support document: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "===The {{csa}} is ''not'' a Credit Support Document...=== Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{isdaprov|Part 4}} of the {{isdaprov|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}. The {{csa}} is, rather, a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. This is rather important to the whole issue of [[close-out netting]]. Deep [[ISDA lore]]. | Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{isdaprov|Part 4}} of the {{isdaprov|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}. The {{csa}} is, rather, a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. This is rather important to the whole issue of [[close-out netting]]. Deep [[ISDA lore]]. | ||
===... | ===... but the {{nycsa}} ''is'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}=== | ||
Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? | Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? | ||
Revision as of 11:01, 25 February 2020
The 1995 CSA is not a Credit Support Document...
Note that a CSA[1] is not a Credit Support Document, and you should not list it as one in Part 4 of the Schedule, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own Credit Support Provider. The 1995 CSA is, rather, a Transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement. This is rather important to the whole issue of close-out netting. Deep ISDA lore.
... but the 1994 NY CSA is a Credit Support Document
Because it is a security financial collateral arrangement arrangement and not a title transfer collateral arrangement, transfer of credit support under a 1994 NY CSA[2] does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the 1994 NY CSA (and its regulatory VM successor, the 2016 NY Law VM CSA is a Credit Support Document and not a transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement. Fun, huh?
- ↑ and its VM update, the 2016 VM CSA.
- ↑ and its VM update, the 2016 NY Law VM CSA.