Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 11:06, 14 November 2017

142 bytes added , 14 November 2017

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Under the {{2002ma}} it is expressed with far more of ISDA's signature sense of the Byzantine, expanding the basic definition to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], [[weather derivative]]s,<ref>Oh, look! Anyone remember {{tag|Enron}}? Anyone feeling nostalgic for the good old days when men were men, fraud was fraud, financial accountants were profit centres and anything seemed possible?</ref>  [[NDF]]s, transactions executed under terms of business and other commodities or similar transactions that is presently or in future becomes common in the financial markets.
-[[File:Specified Transaction.png|400px|thumb|left|At a glance: differences between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}}. As you can see a collossal improvement.]]
+[[File:Specified Transaction.png|450px|thumb|center|At a glance: differences between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}}. As you can see a collossal improvement.]]
 ===Enter the fiddlers===
-This won't stop enthusiastic credit officers amplifying the list.
+ISDA’s verbal profligacy won’t stop enthusiastic credit officers amplifying the list even further, of course. What about [[precious metals|precious metal]] transactions? {{tag|Letter of credit]] reimbursement obligations? [[Indebtedness]]? What indeed?
 ====An odd cognitive dissonance====
-Note {{dust}} doesn't generally pick up contracts in the nature of [[borrowed money]] or [[indebtedness]], because these are picked up under the wider scope of the {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} provision which, of course, applies to indebtedness your counterparty owes to anyone, not just to you (though it does cover indebtedness owed to you). Still, there is weirdness: {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} contemplates a {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} before it can be triggered. {{isdaprov|DUST}} doesn't.  So this leads to an odd gap:
+The framers of {{dust}} ''deliberately'' neglected to include [[borrowed money]] or [[indebtedness]], because these are picked up under the wider scope of the {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} provision which, of course, applies to indebtedness your counterparty owes to ''anyone'', not just you. Still, there is weirdness: {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} contemplates a {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} before it can be triggered. {{isdaprov|DUST}} doesn’t. So this leads to an odd gap:
 *A (sub {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}) default under {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} ''between the two contractual parties'' would not entitle the innocent party to close out;