Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | {{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
The {{2002ma}} expands the basic definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], weather derivatives, [[NDF]]s, | 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. | ||
Note it doesn't generally include contracts in the nature of [[borrowed money]] or indebtedness (these are generally picked up under {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} which is designed to catch them) but it because {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} contemplates a {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} and {{isdaprov|DUST}} doesn't, this leads to an odd gap: | |||
A (sub Threshold Amount) default under {{isdaprov|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 {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}) would. Kind of counterintuitive. | |||
{{isdaanatomy}} | {{isdaanatomy}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} | *{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} |
Revision as of 09:30, 25 January 2013
In gory detail
1992 ISDA |
2002 ISDA
NB - paragraph breaks do not appear in the printed form. |
Commentary
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.