Credit Support Document - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Note that a {{tag|CSA}} is '''not''' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{isdaprov|Part 4}} of the {{isdaprov|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}. The {{csa}} is, rather, a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. This is rather important to the whole issue of [[close-out netting]]. Deep [[ISDA lore]].

Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}} does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh?