Template:Csa title transfer vs pledge: Difference between revisions

*''{{ukcsa}}s are {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s but are not {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s.

*''{{nycsa}}s '''not''' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s, and, explicitly, '''are''' {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}s'', though you should not (according to the user’s guide) describe the parties to one as “{{nycsaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s”.

Because ownership transfers absolutely, the {{{{{1}}}prov|Transferee}} doesn’t have to do anything to enforce its collateral. It already owns it outright. Indeed, to the contrary, should the {{{{{1}}}prov|Exposure}} that the collateral supports disappear, the {{{{{1}}}prov|Transferor}} will be the creditor of the {{{{{1}}}prov|Transferee}}. It is as it it were a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the ISDA where the mark-to-market exposure had flipped around. Indeed, a {{ukcsa}} '''is''' a “{{isdaprov|Transaction}}” under the {{isdama}} — it is an integral part of the {{isdama}} itself, and it is the proverbial schoolboy error to label a {{ukcsa}} as a “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}”. It is not a Credit Support Document. From the point of view of the ISDA architecture it is the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} for a {{isdaprov|Transaction}}.

But the {{nycsa}}s are ''not'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s, for the same reason: title ''doesn’t'' change hands. They are old fashioned security arrangements. Therefore they '''are'' Credit Support Documents in the labyrinthine logic of {{icds}}. This all no doubt must have seen an excellently complex thing for the little gnomes in {{icds}}when they were devising the idea of the [[CSA]] back in the early nineties. Nowadays, it just seems silly. But here we are, folks.