|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{csaanat|1(a)|2016}}A paragraph of unremarkable, if unnecessary, throat-clearing, though marred by a bizarre [[for the avoidance of doubt]] rider which functions as both a ''[[non sequitur|non-sequitur]]'' — no one was talking about transfers here, much less was in any particular state of confusion about them so why bring it up now? — but also the classic self-hack: rather than ''avoiding'' doubt, this rider is [[calculated]] to do nothing quite so much as ''introduce'' it. Wait: was I meant to be doubting something here? Should I have been confused? Have I missed something?
| | #redirect[[Interpretation - VM CSA Provision]] |
| | |
| There is nothing a [[Chicken Licken|cheerful attorney]] likes more than to worry about things, and she will toss sleeplessly for nights on end, fully occupied by questions such as — is “[[delivery]]” of [[cash]] different from “payment” of it? Is there something legally significant about “payment” that I somehow missed, in Banking Law 302, in 1989?
| |
| | |
| Tell your [[legal eagle]]s to relax. It won’t do any ''good'', but you can tell them. To the best the [[JC]] can figure out, all this means is that a {{vmcsaprov|Transferor}} must ''physically'' part with its collateral, handing it bodily over top the {{vmcsaprov|Transferee}}. There is an interesting question as to what this might mean if your [[counterparty]] is also your banker, and you direct it to transfer [[credit support]] into the bank account you maintain with it — not entirely unusual scenario should you be a [[hedge fund]] and the [[counterparty]] be your [[prime broker]] — but this will set your [[legal eagle]]s off again and we don’t want that.
| |
| | |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Cash]]
| |