|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{csaanat|1(b)|2016}} | | {{vmcsamanual|1(b)}} |
| {{csacapsule 1(b)|vmcsa}}
| |
| ===Yes, the drafting’s magic, isn’t it?===
| |
| In the year of our Lord 2016, it is gratifying to see that the good people of {{tag|ISDA}} and their friends, relations, cherubim and seraphin, gog and magog etc., are all still as fearful of the language they learned at their mothers' knees as ever. “[[If any]]” makes four appearances in an eight line clause which doesn’t say much in the first place.
| |
| {{Other CSA commentary}}
| |
| === Weird exclusion alert ===
| |
| What is with that exception at the end? Somehow [[initial margin]]<ref>“{{csaprov|Independent Amount}}” is just isdaspeak for [[initial margin]], remember</ref> for {{vmcsaprov|Covered Transaction}}s under ''this'' {{vmcsa}} might be documented under some {{vmcsaprov|Other CSA}}, when you have just gone to [[tedious]] lengths to exclude it from having any impact on this {{vmcsa}}?
| |
| | |
| At first, the [[JC]] thought this might be a typo in his transcription of the {{vmcsa}} — he’s never claimed to be a details guy — so was a critical “not” missing? A cursory google suggests no such error on his part. So could this have somehow been missed by even the crowd-wise pedants of {{icds}}?
| |
| | |
| Again, no. Our best guess is that this is ''deliberate''. Why? Because the {{vmcsa}} has no provision ''at all'' to deal with [[initial margin]]. It being assumed one has put a {{vmcsa}} in place only reluctantly, under protest because the meddling regulator told you to, and that you already had a {{csa}} which you were happy with, which ''did'' have some initial margin provisions. So, since your shiny new {{vmcsa}} has nothing to say about [[initial margin]] you continue to levy this under the existing {{vmcsaprov|Other CSA}}.
| |
| {{ref}}
| |