Template:Ny csa 6(c) summ: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
Oh, what sad times we live in.
Oh, what sad times we live in.


Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}prov|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though if you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t hasve to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence.  
Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}prov|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though in fact you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t hasve to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence.  


But anyway
But anyway.

Navigation menu