|
|
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdasnap|Specified Transaction Definition}} | | {{newisdamanual|Specified Transaction}} |
| ==Commentary==
| |
| Note the 1992 version excludes actual Transactions under the ISDA itself. This is for the sensible reason that a default under an ISDA Transaction is covered by elsewhere in the ISDA (eg {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Obligation}} concepts, and it might lead to a perverse result if a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} was not otherwise an {{isdaprov|Event of default}} under any ISDA provision but the {{isdaprov|DUST}} provision, however unlikely that may be.
| |
| | |
| 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 {{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 owed to anyone, not just by your counterparty 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:
| |
| | |
| 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}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}}
| |