82,882
edits
Template:Csa legally ineligible credit support: Difference between revisions
Template:Csa legally ineligible credit support (view source)
Revision as of 15:18, 17 January 2020
, 17 January 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===No such concept in the {{csa}} or the {{1994csa}}=== Concerning as it does ''legal'' and not ''contractual'' ineligibility of credit support, and that being a function of c...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In most respects they are identical (with references to {{vmcsaprov|Transferor}} and {{vmcsaprov|Transferee}} switched to {{nyvmcsaprov|Pledgor}} and {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}}. There are two technical differences, for completists: | In most respects they are identical (with references to {{vmcsaprov|Transferor}} and {{vmcsaprov|Transferee}} switched to {{nyvmcsaprov|Pledgor}} and {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}}. There are two technical differences, for completists: | ||
*The exception in the {{vmcsa}} for {{vmcsaprov|Legally Ineligible Credit Support}} counting as {{vmcsaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} for the purpose of {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}} and {{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}. This is because, being a {{ttca}}, even though it is worth zero — for the purposes of discharging one’s regulatory obligation to collect and return collateral — in the real world out there it is still worth something, and the Transferee still has to give it back, even if that has no effect on Valuations under the {{vmcsa}}. With a {{nyvmcsa}} since the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} “never” gets it in the first place<ref>Ahem [[Use of Posted Collateral (VM) - NY VM CSA Provision|rehypothecation]] folks.</ref> the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} doesn’t have to give it back either. | *The exception in the {{vmcsa}} for {{vmcsaprov|Legally Ineligible Credit Support}} counting as {{vmcsaprov|Eligible Credit Support}} for the purpose of {{vmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}} and {{vmcsaprov|Equivalent Credit Support}}. This is because, being a {{ttca}}, even though it is worth zero — for the purposes of discharging one’s regulatory obligation to collect and return collateral — in the real world out there it is still worth something, and the Transferee still has to give it back, even if that has no effect on Valuations under the {{vmcsa}}. With a {{nyvmcsa}} since the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} “never” gets it in the first place<ref>Ahem [[Use of Posted Collateral (VM) - NY VM CSA Provision|rehypothecation]] folks.</ref> the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} doesn’t have to give it back either. | ||
*The exception for valuation on {{csaprov|Default}} — that flows from the fundamental difference between the {{vmcsa}} a {{ttca}} which is a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}} and the {{nyvmcsa}} which is a {{ | *The exception for valuation on {{csaprov|Default}} — that flows from the fundamental difference between the {{vmcsa}} a {{ttca}} which is a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}} and the {{nyvmcsa}} which is a {{sfca}} which is only a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} under the {{isdama}}. <br> | ||