Corporation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Njote that specialist corporations, that count as corporations but also count as recognised specialist entity types in the jurisdiction — for example [[Credit institution|credit institutions]] ([[bank]]s to you and me), [[Investment Firm/Broker-Dealer|broker-dealer]]s and [[Insurance company|insurance companies]], should be treated as those specialist entity types and not corporations, for the very good reason that there are usually special regimes, (eg bank resolution and recovery regulations, insurance protection regimes and so on) and so on that apply to them that don’t apply to normal [[Corporation|corporations]]. | Njote that specialist corporations, that count as corporations but also count as recognised specialist entity types in the jurisdiction — for example [[Credit institution|credit institutions]] ([[bank]]s to you and me), [[Investment Firm/Broker-Dealer|broker-dealer]]s, [[pension fund]]s and [[Insurance company|insurance companies]], should be treated as those specialist entity types and not corporations, for the very good reason that there are usually special regimes, (eg bank resolution and recovery regulations, insurance protection regimes and so on) and so on that apply to them that don’t apply to normal [[Corporation|corporations]]. | ||
Note also that [[Hedge fund/proprietary trader|hedge fund/proprietary trader]] looks like one of these specialist corporations, too, but (unlike banks, brokers and insurance companies), there are very few jurisdictions that have a specialist insolvency regime for [[hedge fund]]s or proprietary traders — these are not terms of prudential art, so to speak, but just casual descriptions — so the [[hedge fund/proprietary trader]] category is usually a red herring and you can ignore it. | Note also that [[Hedge fund/proprietary trader|hedge fund/proprietary trader]] looks like one of these specialist corporations, too, but (unlike banks, brokers and insurance companies), there are very few jurisdictions that have a specialist insolvency regime for [[hedge fund]]s or proprietary traders — these are not terms of prudential art, so to speak, but just casual descriptions — so the [[hedge fund/proprietary trader]] category is usually a red herring and you can ignore it. | ||
Revision as of 10:31, 14 May 2021
|
Netting resources
|
One of ISDA’s vaunted netting categories. The one you really hope your counterparty falls into, since it’s the easiest.
Corporation: A legal entity that is organized as a corporation or company rather than a partnership, is engaged in industrial and/or commercial activities and does not fall within one of the other categories in this Appendix B.
view template
Njote that specialist corporations, that count as corporations but also count as recognised specialist entity types in the jurisdiction — for example credit institutions (banks to you and me), broker-dealers, pension funds and insurance companies, should be treated as those specialist entity types and not corporations, for the very good reason that there are usually special regimes, (eg bank resolution and recovery regulations, insurance protection regimes and so on) and so on that apply to them that don’t apply to normal corporations.
Note also that hedge fund/proprietary trader looks like one of these specialist corporations, too, but (unlike banks, brokers and insurance companies), there are very few jurisdictions that have a specialist insolvency regime for hedge funds or proprietary traders — these are not terms of prudential art, so to speak, but just casual descriptions — so the hedge fund/proprietary trader category is usually a red herring and you can ignore it.