82,882
edits
Template:Csa legally ineligible credit support: Difference between revisions
Template:Csa legally ineligible credit support (view source)
Revision as of 15:23, 17 January 2020
, 17 January 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===Difference between {{vmcsa}} and {{nyvmcsa}}=== | ===Difference between {{vmcsa}} and {{nyvmcsa}}=== | ||
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 it is still worth something, and the {{vmcsaprov|Transferee}} still has to give it back, even if that has no effect on [[Value - VM CSA Provision|valuations]] under the {{vmcsa}}. With a {{nyvmcsa}} since the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} never<ref>Ahem [[Use of Posted Collateral (VM) - NY VM CSA Provision|rehypothecation]] folks.</ref> “gets” it in the first place, the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} doesn’t have to give it back either (if you aren’t saying, “hey, but what about rehypothecation under Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|6(c)}}?”, you ''should'' be) | *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 it is still worth something, and the {{vmcsaprov|Transferee}} still has to give it back, even if that has no effect on [[Value - VM CSA Provision|valuations]] under the {{vmcsa}}. With a {{nyvmcsa}} since the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} never<ref>Ahem [[Use of Posted Collateral (VM) - NY VM CSA Provision|rehypothecation]] folks.</ref> “gets” it in the first place, the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}} doesn’t have to give it back either. (By the way, if you aren’t saying, “hey, but what about rehypothecation under Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|6(c)}}?” yet, you ''should'' be.) | ||
*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> | *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> | ||