Template:M tldr isda Party A and Party B: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Unlike most finance contracts, the ISDA has no fixed roles — swaps were formulated as contracts between equals — the labels Party A and Party B reflect that either party can be long or short or be in- or out-of-the-money — this can create documentation glitches through clerical oversight — beyond interdealer relationships, swaps aren’t contracts between equals, but no different from other forms of financed brokerage — belief in bi..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Unlike most finance contracts, | Unlike most finance contracts, swaps were conceived as contracts between equals — “Party A” and “Party B” labels reflect this — either party can be [[long]] or [[short]], or [[In-the-money|in-]] or [[out-of-the-money]] — clerical oversight can be a bitch — most swaps aren’t really contracts of equals — mistaken belief in bilaterality by regulators has arguably concentrated, rather than dissipated, systemic risk. | ||
Revision as of 11:26, 16 December 2023
Unlike most finance contracts, swaps were conceived as contracts between equals — “Party A” and “Party B” labels reflect this — either party can be long or short, or in- or out-of-the-money — clerical oversight can be a bitch — most swaps aren’t really contracts of equals — mistaken belief in bilaterality by regulators has arguably concentrated, rather than dissipated, systemic risk.