|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|Specified Transaction}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|Specified Transaction|Section|Specified Transaction|medium}} |
| ''See also: [[Failure to Pay, DUST and Cross Default under the ISDA]]''<br>
| |
| Used in the {{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}} — fondly known to those in the know as “{{isdaprov|DUST}}”.
| |
| ===What?===
| |
| {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s are those financial markets transactions between you and your counterparty ''other than those under the present {{isdama}}'', default under which justifies the wronged party closing out the present {{isda}}. “Specified Transactions” therefore specifically ''exclude'' {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under the ISDA itself for the sensible reason that a default under those is covered by by {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Obligation}}. It might lead to a perverse result if misadventure under an {{isdama}} {{isdaprov|Transaction}} which did not otherwise amount to an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, became one purely as a result of the {{isdaprov|DUST}} provision, however unlikely that may be.
| |
| ===Different formulations between the versions===
| |
| A {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} under the {{1992ma}} is, by ISDA standards, monosyllabic to the point of being terse.
| |
| | |
| 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|450px|thumb|center|At a glance: differences between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}}. As you can see a colossal improvement.]]
| |
| | |
| ===Enter the fiddlers===
| |
| 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]]====
| |
| 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;
| |
| *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}}
| |
| {{ref}}
| |