Credit Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Credit Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision (view source)

216 bytes added , 11 December 2018

82,891

edits

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 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]]===
+===[[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]].
+Really, we are a [[hedge fund]], we’re not rated, we’re not going to be and we’re hardly going to merge, are we? and even if we did we wouldn’t do it in a way that disadvantaged existing investors. So must we really have a [[CEUM]]?
-===1992 upgrade===
+We really must, lest [[Chicken Licken|the sky fall in on our heads]]. For it is written: it is the [[credit officer’s refrain]].
+==={{1992ma}} 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.
 Here’s a snapshot of the difference:
 [[File:CEUM delta.png|450px|thumb|center|What what once was, overlaid with what now is.]]