82,972
edits
Template:Csa Conditions Precedent summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "====''Another'' flawed asset clause?==== Aren’t the Conditions precedent dealt with in Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the ISDA? Well, they are — if your credit support annex counts as a Transaction under the ISDA, which the ''title transfer'' CSAs do (eg, the English law {{1995csa}} and the {{2016csa}}), but the ''security interest'' CSAs (the New York law {{1994csa}} and {{2016nycsa}} and the English law {{2018imcsd}}) do not.") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Well, they are — if your credit support annex counts as a Transaction under the ISDA, which the ''[[title transfer]]'' CSAs do (eg, the English law {{1995csa}} and the {{2016csa}}), but the ''security interest'' CSAs (the New York law {{1994csa}} and {{2016nycsa}} and the English law {{2018imcsd}}) do not. | Well, they are — if your credit support annex counts as a Transaction under the ISDA, which the ''[[title transfer]]'' CSAs do (eg, the English law {{1995csa}} and the {{2016csa}}), but the ''security interest'' CSAs (the New York law {{1994csa}} and {{2016nycsa}} and the English law {{2018imcsd}}) do not. | ||
[[Conditions Precedent - IM CSD Provision|Not]] entirely clear that it should relate to ineligible {{csaprov|Credit Support}} (that hence has a {{csaprov|Value}} of zero), since it doesn’t count numerically into the {{csaprov|Value}} of the {{csaprov|Posted Credit Support (IM)}} (this is the {{imcsd}}’s ungainly description of what we used to call a “{{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}}” — but on the other hand the argument is “well, you are going ''[[tetas arriba]]'' so frankly anything of yours that I hold I’m damn well keeping and selling for anything I can get for it.” | |||
The latter argument, we fancy, will prevail. | |||