|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{nycsaanat|11(g)|9(e)|}} | | {{nycsaanat|11(g)|2016|9(e)|}} |
| {{csa legally ineligible credit support}} | | {{csa legally ineligible credit support}} |
| ===No such concept in the {{csa}} or the {{1994csa}}===
| |
| Concerning as it does ''legal'' and not ''contractual'' ineligibility of credit support, and that being a function of criteria imposed by regulators on ones ''mandatory'' obligations to post and collect margin, which did not exist before 2016, it is hardly surprising the distant ancestors of {{icds}} didn’t anticipate the need for this clause, which is convoluted, and you can avoid the need for entirely should you post [[cash]] in a sensible currency.
| |
| ===Difference between {{vmcsa}} and {{nyvmcsa}}===
| |
| In most respects they are identical to the {{vmcsa}}. Two differences:
| |
| *The exception in the {{vmcsa}} for {{vmcsaprov|Legally Ineligible Credit Support}} counting as {{vmcsaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} for the purpose of {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}} and {{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}. This is because, being a {{ttca}}, even though it is worth zero — for the purposes of discharging one’s regulatory obligation to collect and return collateral — in the real world out there it is still worth something, and the Transferee still has to give it back, even if that has no effect on Valuations under the {{vmcsa}}. With a {{nyvmcsa}} since the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} “never” gets it in the first place<ref>Ahem [[Use of Posted Collateral (VM) - NY VM CSA Provision|rehypothecation]] folks.</ref> the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} doesn’t have to give it back either.
| |
| *The exception for valuation on {{csaprov|Default}} — that flows from the fundamental difference between the {{vmcsa}} a {{ttca}} which is a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}} and the {{nyvmcsa}} which is a {{scta}} which is only a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} under the {{isdama}}.
| |