82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
In this way does security interest collateral arrangement with rehypothecation convert itself, for all intents and purposes, into a title transfer collateral arrangement. | In this way does security interest collateral arrangement with rehypothecation convert itself, for all intents and purposes, into a title transfer collateral arrangement. | ||
====Rehypothecation | ====Rehypothecation==== | ||
{{quote|{{Rehypothecation capsule}}}} | |||
Paragraph {{{{{1}}}|6(c)}} is the classic part of your [[security interest]] CSA that converts it into a [[title transfer]] CSA, meaning — cough, as with much [[New York law]] frippery — that you might as well not bother with calling this a [[pledge]] or [[security interest]] in the first place. | Paragraph {{{{{1}}}|6(c)}} is the classic part of your [[security interest]] CSA that converts it into a [[title transfer]] CSA, meaning — cough, as with much [[New York law]] frippery — that you might as well not bother with calling this a [[pledge]] or [[security interest]] in the first place. | ||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though in fact you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t have to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence. | Note the odd coda: references to {{{{{1}}}|Posted Collateral}} etc — where, for the purposes of calculating your credit support posting obligations, you are [[deemed]] to still hold it, even though in fact you don’t — is in part an attempt to state the bleeding obvious: just because you’ve hocked the assets off to someone else doesn’t mean you don’t still have to account to your counterparty for their value in the long run — and, we think, a rather feeble attempt to avoid having to create an “{{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}” concept. Since you've sent the particular asset your counterparty gave you into the great wide open, the thing you'll be giving back will be [[Fungible|economically]], but not [[Ontological certainty|ontologically]], so in theory you don’t have to give back the ''exact same one'', even if it does have to be identical with it. Perhaps a concern in 1994, though since {{icds}} went full metal jacket on that enterprise in 1995 when crafting the {{csa}}, it is not like we don’t have suitable, road-tested — if a little anal — language to capture the idea of equivalence. | ||
But anyway. | But anyway. |