82,891
edits
Credit Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Credit Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 14:02, 11 December 2018
, 11 December 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Note also the interrelationship between [[CEUM]] and the {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} {{isdaprov|ATE}}. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about {{isdaprov|CEUM}} because it is either caught by {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} or, where there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on {{isdaprov|CEUM}} seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do we care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other downgrade?) | Note also the interrelationship between [[CEUM]] and the {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} {{isdaprov|ATE}}. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about {{isdaprov|CEUM}} because it is either caught by {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} or, where there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on {{isdaprov|CEUM}} seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do we care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other downgrade?) | ||
==[[Hedge Funds]]=== | |||
Really, we are a [[hedge fund]], we're not rated and we’re most unlikely to merge, are we. So must we really have a CEUM? Cue the [[credit officer’s refrain]]. | |||
===1992 upgrade=== | ===1992 upgrade=== | ||
Even before the {{2002ma}} was published it was common to upgrade the {{1992ma}} formulation to something resembling the glorious concoction that became Section 5(b)(v) of the {{2002ma}}. The 1992 wording is a bit lame, really. | Even before the {{2002ma}} was published it was common to upgrade the {{1992ma}} formulation to something resembling the glorious concoction that became Section 5(b)(v) of the {{2002ma}}. The 1992 wording is a bit lame, really. | ||