Preamble - NY VM CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Manual|MCAN|2016|preamble|Paragraph|preamble|medium}} | ||
Revision as of 15:13, 7 February 2022
2016 ISDA Credit Support Annex (VM) (New York law)
Paragraph preamble in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Paragraph preamble
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
Template:M comp disc 2016 NY CSA preamble
Summary
Deep ontological differences between NY and English law versions
Unlike a title transfer English law CSA which is expressed to be a Transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement, the 2016 NY Law VM CSA is not: it is instead a “Credit Support Document”: a standalone collateral arrangement that stands aloof and apart from the ISDA Master Agreement and all its little diabolical Transactions. The reason for this is — spoiler: it’s not a very good one — because while a English law CSA, by being a title transfer collateral arrangement, necessarily reverses the indebtedness between the parties outright, an 2016 NY Law VM CSA (and, for that matter, an English law English law CSD) does not: it only provides a security interest. The in-the-money counterparty is still in-the-money. It is just secured for that exposure. The outright exposure between the parties does not change as a result of the pledge of credit support.
This is magical, bamboozling stuff — deep ISDA lore — and, at least where rehypothecation is allowed under Paragraph 6(c) of a 2016 NY Law VM CSA — it pretty much always is — it serves no real purpose, because even though you say you are only pledging the collateral, in the the greasy light of commercial reality, from the moment the Secured Party rehypothecates your pledged assets away into the market, dear Pledgor you have transferred your title outright.
General discussion
Template:M gen 2016 NY CSA preamble
See also
Template:M sa 2016 NY CSA preamble