Long-form confirmation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
m (Text replace - "{{isdaanatomy}}" to "{{anat|isda}}")
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
A long form confirmaion, or "{{tag|LFC}}", generally refers to the documentation for a financial transaction between two parties which have not (yet) formally signed a [[master agreement]] for that type of transaction. Instead they document the trade on a "long form" which deems a basic version of the relevant master agreement be in existence between the parties for the purposes of the transaction.
{{a|isda|}}A [[long form confirmation]], or “'''{{tag|LFC}}'''”, generally refers to the documentation for a financial transaction between two parties which have not (yet) formally signed a [[master agreement]] for that type of transaction. Instead they document the trade on a “long form” which deems a basic version of the relevant master agreement be in existence between the parties for the purposes of the transaction.


====Example: ISDA LFC====
====Example: ISDA LFC====
Line 5: Line 5:


====Drawbacks====
====Drawbacks====
While {{tag|LFC}}s "do the job", they're not ideal for a number of reasons:
While {{tag|LFC}}s “do the job”, they're not ideal for a number of reasons:
*They incorporate the basic ISDA protections whcih are in the preprinted {{isdama}}. However, most counterparties significantly enhance these protections with additional provisions and elections in the {{isdaprov|Schedule}} and with a {{csa}}. The standard form LFC does not capture any such enhancements, and does not have a {{csa}}.
*They incorporate the basic ISDA protections whcih are in the preprinted {{isdama}}. However, most counterparties significantly enhance these protections with additional provisions and elections in the {{isdaprov|Schedule}} and with a {{csa}}. The standard form LFC does not capture any such enhancements, and does not have a {{csa}}.
*The standard LFC deems eachy separate transaction to be executed under s "stand-alone" {{isdama}}. Without additional amendment, there would not be cross-transactional [[close-out netting]] between two LFCs exectuted with the same party (though this language may be overcome provided there is some "aggregation language" in every LFC, and every LFC has the same designated {{isdaprov|Termination Currency}}).
*The standard LFC deems eachy separate transaction to be executed under s “stand-alone” {{isdama}}. Without additional amendment, there would not be cross-transactional [[close-out netting]] between two LFCs exectuted with the same party (though this language may be overcome provided there is some "aggregation language" in every LFC, and every LFC has the same designated {{isdaprov|Termination Currency}}).


{{anat|isda}}
{{sa}}
*[[FWMD Top Trumps]]