83,492
edits
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption and Suspension: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption and Suspension (view source)
Revision as of 15:54, 12 April 2023
, 12 April 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} also contemplates an the cash payer paying an additional {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Amount}} payment, and again the ’squad’s logic here does not leap off the page. If anyone happens to know, do write in. | The {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} also contemplates an the cash payer paying an additional {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Amount}} payment, and again the ’squad’s logic here does not leap off the page. If anyone happens to know, do write in. | ||
=== | ===“Continuing” Settlement Disruptions and Suspensions=== | ||
Now things start getting properly baroque. Settlement | Now things start getting properly baroque. Whether one is Suspended or suffering a Settlement Disruption, the ’squad contemplates the scenario where the disruption stretches out so far past the original scheduled {{euaprov|Delivery Date}} that thigs are getting ridiculous. After this time of course we must deal with the phantoms and succubi of unexpected reconciliation deadlines, end of phase reconciliation deadlines which of course we are not within the parties’ original contemplation, the original {{euaprov|Delivery Date}} scheduled to occur before any of these could happen. At the end of a period not longer than nine {{euaprov|Delivery Business Days}} after the original {{euaprov|Delivery Date}}, an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}” {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} will be deemed to occur. | ||
But the oddest thing here is that, in either case, once we get to the “let’s call the whole thing off” point, the Transaction is just wiped from the horizon as if it did not exist. Any partially settled payments must be returned, and the parties just sort of skulk away as if they had never been there in the first place. | |||
We have to confess we don’t understand the logic of that. A person who has ''sold'' an {{euaprov|Allowance}} — who economically has expressed the opinion that it wants out of this exposure, now, even if it will agree to finance its carrying cost until later — possibly for the precise reason that it may become unfashionable, hard to transfer, illiquid, or of lower than present value — finds that, because said asset having become hard to transfer, exactly like she thought it would, she now has to suck the whole thing up, wave away all those juicy sale proceeds, and she doesn’t even get compensated for the Cost of Carry Amount she thought she was entitled to. | |||
Don’t follow that. | |||