|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|5(b)(v)|Section|5(b)(v)|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|5(b)(v)|Section|5(b)(v)|medium}} |
| {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} - Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(viii)}} is {{isdaprov|Merger Without Assumption}}.
| |
|
| |
| Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} of the {{isdaprov|Transfer}} Section. You should not need to amend Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} (for example to require equivalence of credit quality of any transferee entity etc because that is managed by {{isdaprov|CEUM}}.
| |
|
| |
| 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 fund]]s and [[CEUM]]===
| |
| 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]]?
| |
|
| |
| We really must<ref>We really need not.</ref>, 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.]]
| |
| {{ref}}
| |