|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{fullanat2|isda|Specified Transaction Definition|2002|Specified Transaction Definition|1992}} | | {{newisdamanual|Specified Transaction}} |
| | |
| {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s, default under which entitles one to close out the ISDA, excludes {{isdaprov|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.
| |
| ====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:
| |
| | |
| *A (sub {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}) default under {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} ''between the two contractual parties'' would not entitle the innocent party to close out;
| |
| *A default under ''any other {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}'' between them ''would'' ''''' even if a smaller quantum of default'''''. This is kind of counterintuitive. If you were to define {{dust}} to include indebtedness, of course, you'd be covered.
| |
| | |
| {{isdaanatomy}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}}
| |