|
|
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| If you had to redeliver the same one, the “transfer of title” is in danger of being [[recharacterised]] into a [[pledge]]/[[loan]], which has a bunch of unwanted knock-on effects. | | If you had to redeliver the same one, the “transfer of title” is in danger of being [[recharacterised]] into a [[pledge]]/[[loan]], which has a bunch of unwanted knock-on effects. |
|
| |
|
| I have come across a couple of instances (in {{tag|OTC Clearing}}/{{tag|CCP}} space) where the {{tag|CSA}} definition of “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” has been modified to capture not just fungible securities of the same Series/[[ISIN]], but “similar ones” – same issuer but different maturity, and under a different ISIN etc.
| | {{equivalent vs similar}} |
| | |
| This may have been based on a misapprehension that “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” is already intended to allow redelivery of ''non''-[[fungible]] securities of a similar type, and the modification is only clarificatory.
| |
| | |
| There may be a need for the “''similar'' securities” concept in the [[OTC to CCP]] space, but we should call it something else – perhaps “Similar Credit Support” – to differentiate it from “{{csaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” which is still needed in the CSA to support the title transfer analysis.
| |