Template:Isda Credit Support Provider summ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "A {{csa}} is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. A {{nycsa}}, on the other hand, ''is''a{{{{{1}}}|Credit Supp..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A {{csa}} is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. A {{nycsa}}, on the other hand, ''is''a{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. Should a Party to the {{isdama}}, where there is a {{nycsa}}, be described as a “{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"? | A {{csa}} is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. A {{nycsa}}, on the other hand, ''is'' a{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. Should a Party to the {{isdama}}, where there is a {{nycsa}}, be described as a “{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"? | ||
'''No''', sayeth the Users' Guide to the {{1994csa}}: | '''No''', sayeth the Users' Guide to the {{1994csa}}: | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 15 April 2020
A 1995 CSA is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the ISDA Master Agreement. A 1994 NY CSA, on the other hand, is a{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. Should a Party to the ISDA Master Agreement, where there is a 1994 NY CSA, be described as a “{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"?
No, sayeth the Users' Guide to the 1994 NY CSA:
- “Parties to an ISDA Master Agreement should not, however, be identified as {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s with respect to the Annex, as such term is intended only to apply to third parties.”
So that’s cleared that up, then.