82,891
edits
Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 09:30, 25 January 2013
, 25 January 2013→Commentary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | {{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
The {{2002ma}} expands the basic definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], weather derivatives, [[NDF]]s, | The {{2002ma}} expands the basic definition of {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} to specifically include [[futures]] [[credit derivatives]], [[repo]], [[stock lending]], weather derivatives, [[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. | ||
Note it doesn't generally include contracts in the nature of [[borrowed money]] or indebtedness (these are generally picked up under {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} which is designed to catch them) but it because {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} contemplates a {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} and {{isdaprov|DUST}} doesn't, this leads to an odd gap: | |||
A (sub Threshold Amount) default under {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} between the two contractual parties would not entitle the unaffacted party to close out, but a default under any other derivative transaction (as dfefined in {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}) would. Kind of counterintuitive. | |||
{{isdaanatomy}} | {{isdaanatomy}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} | *{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} | ||