Template:M comp disc Pledge GMSLA 11: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "There are some significant differences here, as you might expect, since the philosophical unpinning of what is going on is profoundly different, even if the commercial outcome..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There are some significant differences here, as you might expect, since the philosophical unpinning of what is going on is profoundly different, even if the commercial outcome is the same. Think VHS and Betamax. The [[JC]]’s deltaview is on the panel on the right, but in a nutshell under the {{pgmsla}}: | There are some significant differences here, as you might expect, since the philosophical unpinning of what is going on is profoundly different, even if the commercial outcome is the same. Think VHS and Betamax. The [[JC]]’s deltaview is on the panel on the right, but in a nutshell under the {{pgmsla}}: | ||
*Only the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s redelivery payments are accelerated, since by the theory of the game, the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} never gets possession of the collateral and is not therefore in a position ''to'' redeliver it. | *Only the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s redelivery payments are accelerated, since by the theory of the game, the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} never gets possession of the collateral and is not therefore in a position ''to'' redeliver it. | ||
*There’s less fog and confusion because {{icmacds}} in their wisdom removed {{gmslaprov|Letters of Credit}} as a form of eligible {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} from | *There’s less fog and confusion because {{icmacds}} in their wisdom removed {{gmslaprov|Letters of Credit}} as a form of eligible {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} from the {{pgmsla}} | ||
*The reckoning of what is due under Paragraph {{pgmslaprov|11.2(b)}} — setting off all sums owed by one party against all sums owed by the other — is less fraught, and will always be a net payable back to the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} (because the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} never transferred title to the pledged {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} in the first place) | *The reckoning of what is due under Paragraph {{pgmslaprov|11.2(b)}} — setting off all sums owed by one party against all sums owed by the other — is less fraught, and will always be a net payable back to the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} (because the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} never transferred title to the pledged {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} in the first place) | ||
*There is no concept in the{{pgmsla}} of “{{pgmslaprov|Deliverable Securities}}” or “{{pgmslaprov|Receivable Securities}}”, seeing as there will not always be a receiver and a deliverer, so they don’t come into the frame for the reckoning of the {{pgmslaprov|Default Market Value}} in the same way. | *There is no concept in the{{pgmsla}} of “{{pgmslaprov|Deliverable Securities}}” or “{{pgmslaprov|Receivable Securities}}”, seeing as there will not always be a receiver and a deliverer, so they don’t come into the frame for the reckoning of the {{pgmslaprov|Default Market Value}} in the same way. | ||
Revision as of 11:31, 12 June 2020
There are some significant differences here, as you might expect, since the philosophical unpinning of what is going on is profoundly different, even if the commercial outcome is the same. Think VHS and Betamax. The JC’s deltaview is on the panel on the right, but in a nutshell under the 2018 Pledge GMSLA:
- Only the Borrower’s redelivery payments are accelerated, since by the theory of the game, the Lender never gets possession of the collateral and is not therefore in a position to redeliver it.
- There’s less fog and confusion because ICMA’s crack drafting squad™ in their wisdom removed Letters of Credit as a form of eligible Collateral from the 2018 Pledge GMSLA
- The reckoning of what is due under Paragraph 11.2(b) — setting off all sums owed by one party against all sums owed by the other — is less fraught, and will always be a net payable back to the Lender (because the Borrower never transferred title to the pledged Collateral in the first place)
- There is no concept in the2018 Pledge GMSLA of “Deliverable Securities” or “Receivable Securities”, seeing as there will not always be a receiver and a deliverer, so they don’t come into the frame for the reckoning of the Default Market Value in the same way.