Template:Csa Preamble summ: Difference between revisions

Template:Csa Preamble summ (view source)

Revision as of 15:09, 31 March 2024

1,404 bytes added , 31 March

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,903

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Note that {{ukcsa}}s ''are'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s and not {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s under the {{isdama}}, whereas the {{uscsa}}s and {{csd}} are {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s but not {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s. Once you are up and running this won’t matter a jot, but if you are trying to get your poor dishevelled mind around this benighted agreement suite, it will surely do it in. But stick with it: your reward will be in heaven. Possibly.
+{{ukcsa}}s are “{{isdaprov|Transaction}}s” and not “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s” under the {{isdama}}, whereas the {{uscsa}}s and {{csd}} are “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s” but ''not'' “{{isdaprov|Transaction}}s”. Once you are up and running this won’t matter a jot, but if you are trying to get your poor dishevelled mind around this benighted agreement suite, it will surely do it in. But stick with it: your reward will be in heaven. Possibly.
-{{Csa transaction versus credit support document}}
+===Profound onotological differences===
+Unlike a [[title transfer]] {{ukcsa}} which is expressed to be a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}, the {{nyvmcsa}} is ''not'': it is instead a “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}”: a standalone [[collateral]] arrangement that stands aloof and apart from the {{isdama}} and all its little diabolical {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s. The reason for this is — spoiler: it’s not a very good one — because while a {{ukcsa}}, by being a {{ttca}}, necessarily reverses the [[indebtedness]] between the parties outright, an {{nyvmcsa}} (and, for that matter, an [[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 {{isdaprov|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 {{nyvmcsaprov|6(c)}} of a {{nyvmcsa}} — 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 {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}}  [[rehypothecate]]s your pledged assets away into the market, dear {{nyvmcsaprov|Pledgor}} you ''have'' transferred your title outright.