82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it. | At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it. | ||
'''But''': This is only true unless your netting agreement actually disapplies netting of receivables which have been subject to an assignment. If it does something crazy, like dividing these amounts off as "excluded termination amounts not subject to netting". | '''But''': This is only true unless your netting agreement actually ''disapplies'' netting of receivables which have been subject to an assignment. If it does something crazy, like dividing these amounts off as "excluded termination amounts not subject to netting". | ||
But why on God’s green earth would anyone do that? A question you might want to ask to the drafters of the {{tag|FIA}}'s [[Professional Client Agreement]], which does ''exactly'' that. | But why on God’s green earth would anyone do that? A question you might want to ask to the drafters of the {{tag|FIA}}'s [[Professional Client Agreement]], which does ''exactly'' that. <br> | ||