Template:Credit support annex as a credit support document: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===The {{csa}} is ''not'' a Credit Support Document...=== | ===The {{csa}} is ''not'' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}...=== | ||
Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{ | Note that a {{tag|CSA}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{vmcsa}}.</ref> is '''not''' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{{{{1}}}|Part 4}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}. The {{csa}} is, rather, a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. This is rather important to the whole issue of [[close-out netting]]. Deep [[ISDA lore]]. | ||
===... but the {{nycsa}} ''is'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}=== | ===... but the {{nycsa}} ''is'' a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}=== | ||
Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? | Because it is a {{sfca}} arrangement and not a {{ttca}}, transfer of credit support under a {{nycsa}}<ref>and its VM update, the {{nyvmcsa}}.</ref> does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the {{nycsa}} (and its regulatory VM successor, the {{nyvmcsa}} is a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} and not a transaction under the {{isdama}}. Fun, huh? | ||
Revision as of 08:08, 26 April 2020
The 1995 CSA is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}...
Note that a CSA[1] is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and you should not list it as one in {{{{{1}}}|Part 4}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, however satisfying it might be to do so. I mean it sounds like one, right? But no: the counterparty cannot be its own {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}. The 1995 CSA is, rather, a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the ISDA Master Agreement. This is rather important to the whole issue of close-out netting. Deep ISDA lore.
... but the 1994 New York law CSA is a Credit Support Document
Because it is a security financial collateral arrangement arrangement and not a title transfer collateral arrangement, transfer of credit support under a 1994 New York law CSA[2] does not change the net liabilities between the parties, the 1994 New York law CSA (and its regulatory VM successor, the 2016 NY Law VM CSA is a Credit Support Document and not a transaction under the ISDA Master Agreement. Fun, huh?
- ↑ and its VM update, the 2016 VM CSA.
- ↑ and its VM update, the 2016 NY Law VM CSA.