82,891
edits
Offices; Multibranch Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Offices; Multibranch Parties - ISDA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 08:53, 9 September 2019
, 9 September 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:“Of course there are other ways to get around it: disclosure of the branch in a Confirmation (operational risk, and of no use in electronically booked txns), or more detailed [[reps]] in Part 5 - but none is as simple or uncomplicated as simply putting “New York” in the Multibranch election” | :“Of course there are other ways to get around it: disclosure of the branch in a Confirmation (operational risk, and of no use in electronically booked txns), or more detailed [[reps]] in Part 5 - but none is as simple or uncomplicated as simply putting “New York” in the Multibranch election” | ||
===[[ | ===Must you complete [[onboarding]] in each jurisdiction though?=== | ||
If you have a [[Multibranch ISDA]] | If you have a [[Multibranch ISDA]] you need to [[Onboarding|onboard]] the client in each of the jurisdictions in which a listed [[branch]] is located? Students of [[onboarding]] will recognise this as a collossal disincentive to adding branches willy-nilly, but indeed it is the implication: if you plan to trade with a customer directly out of a branch, you are performing what is almost certainly a regulated activity in that jurisdiction, and should treat them therefore as a client in that jurisdiction. | ||
===={{tag|Netting}}==== | ===={{tag|Netting}}==== | ||