82,891
edits
Flawed asset: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
You’ll be most likely wanting to see the discussion on this wonderfully baffling subject under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the {{isdama}}. | You’ll be most likely wanting to see the discussion on this wonderfully baffling subject under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the {{isdama}}. | ||
More generally, following an [[event of default]], a [[flawed asset]] provision allows an innocent, but [[out-of-the-money]] party to a {{tag|derivative}} or {{tag|securities finance}} transaction to suspend performance of its obligations without terminating the transaction and thereby crystallising a [[mark-to-market]] loss. | |||
Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} entered the argot in a simpler, more peaceable time, when zero threshold, daily margined {{tag|CSA}}s were an uncommon, rather fantastical sight. They’re more or less obligatory now, so it’s hard to see the justification for a flawed asset provision. | The asset – a right to payment under the transaction – is “flawed” in the sense that it only become payable ''if the conditions precedent to payment are fulfilled''. | ||
Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} entered the argot in a simpler, more peaceable time, when zero threshold, daily margined {{tag|CSA}}s were an uncommon, rather fantastical sight. They’re more or less obligatory now – indeed, once regulatory [[uncleared margin]] is a thing they ''will'' be obligatory – so it’s hard to see the justification for a [[flawed asset]] provision. | |||
===Master trading agreements=== | ===Master trading agreements=== | ||