83,357
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===The {{csa}} is ''not'' a Credit Support Document...=== | ===The {{csa}} is ''not'' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}...=== | ||
Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{ | Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{{{{1}}}|Part 4}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}. The {{csa}} is, rather, a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. This is rather important to the whole issue of [[close-out netting]]. Deep [[ISDA lore]]. | ||
===... but the {{nycsa}} ''is'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}=== | ===... but the {{nycsa}} ''is'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}=== | ||
Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? | Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? |