Template:Csa transaction versus credit support document: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "===Profound onotological differences=== Unlike a title transfer {{ukcsa}}, the {{nyvmcsa}} is ''not'' a Transaction under the {{isdama}}, but is in fact a {{isdaprov|Credi...")
 
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Profound onotological differences===
===Profound onotological differences===
Unlike a [[title transfer]] {{ukcsa}}, the {{nyvmcsa}} is ''not'' a Transaction under the {{isdama}}, but is in fact a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}: a standalone [[collateral]] arrangement that stands aloof and apart from the {{isdama}} and all its little diabolical {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s, and the reason for ''that'' is — and, spoiler: it’s not a very good one — because while a {{ukcsa}}, by being a {{ttca}}, reverses the [[indebtedness]] claim outright, an {{nyvmcsa}} (and, for that matter, an English law Credit Support Deed) does not: it only provides a [[security interest]]. The [[in-the-money]] counterparty is still [[in-the-money]]. It is just ''secured'' for that [[exposure]]. The outright exposure between the parties does not change.
Unlike a [[title transfer]] {{ukcsa}} which is expressed to be a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}, the {{nyvmcsa}} is ''not'': it is instead a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}: a standalone [[collateral]] arrangement that stands aloof and apart from the {{isdama}} and all its little diabolical {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s. The reason for this is — spoiler: it’s not a very good one — because while a {{ukcsa}}, by being a {{ttca}}, necessarily reverses the [[indebtedness]] between the parties outright, an {{nyvmcsa}} (and, for that matter, an [[English law]] {{csd}}) does not: it only provides a [[security interest]]. The [[in-the-money]] counterparty is still [[in-the-money]]. It is just ''secured'' for that [[exposure]]. The outright {{isdaprov|exposure}} between the parties does not change as a result of the pledge of credit support.


This is deep, magical, bamboozling stuff and, at least where [[rehypoethcation]] is allowed under Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|9(c)}} of a {{nyvmcsa}} — it pretty much always is — serves no real pupose at all, because even though you ''say'' you are only pledging the agreement, in the the greasy light of commercial reality, you ''are'' transferring title outright.
This is magical, bamboozling stuff — deep ISDA lore — and, at least where [[rehypothecation]] is allowed under Paragraph {{nyvmcsaprov|6(c)}} of a {{nyvmcsa}} — it pretty much always is — it serves no real purpose, because even though you ''say'' you are only pledging the collateral, in the the greasy light of commercial reality, from the moment the {{nyvmcsaprov|Secured Party}}  [[rehypothecate]]s your pledged assets away into the market, dear {{nyvmcsaprov|Pledgor}} you ''have'' transferred your title outright.