Preamble - CSA Provision

Revision as of 15:08, 16 January 2020 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{csaanat|Preamble|1995}} {{Csa transaction versus credit support document}}")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
ISDA 1995 English Law Credit Support Annex


In a Nutshell Section Preamble:

Template:Nutshell 1995 CSA Preamble view template

1995 CSA full text of Section Preamble:

Credit Support Annex
dated as of ……………………….
to the Schedule to the ISDA Master Agreement
dated as of ...........................................................
between
........................................................ and ....................................................
(“Party A”) (“Party B”)


This Annex supplements, forms part of, and is subject to, the ISDA Master Agreement referred to above and is part of its Schedule. For the purposes of this Agreement, including, without limitation, Sections 1(c), 2(a), 5 and 6, the credit support arrangements set out in this Annex constitute a Transaction (for which this Annex constitutes the Confirmation).
view template

Related Agreements
Click here for the text of Section Preamble in the 1995 English Law CSA
Click here for the text of Section Preamble in the 2016 English Law VM CSA
Click [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|here]] for the text of the equivalent, Section [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|{{{3}}}]] in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA
Comparisons
Template:Csadiff Preamble
{{nycsadiff {{{3}}}}}

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


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.