Template:Isda Credit Support Provider summ: Difference between revisions

Template:Isda Credit Support Provider summ (view source)

Revision as of 09:08, 8 June 2023

668 bytes added , 8 June 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A {{csa}} is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}. A {{nycsa}}, on the other hand, ''is'' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. Should a Party to the {{isdama}}, where there is a {{nycsa}}, be described as a “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"?
+A {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}} is basically a [[guarantor]]: a third party who stands being the obligations of a counterparty to the {{isdama}}. Usually this is someone providing an all obligations guarantee or a standby letter of credit, but on rare occasions — very rare, usually involving [[espievie]]s — might be a third party directly posting credit support to the other party under a Credit Support Document. In any case it is not a direct counterparty to the {{isdama}} itself, whether or not the CSA counts as a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}.
-'''No''', sayeth the User’s Guide to the {{1994csa}}:
+Given that a {{csa}} is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}}, a party to it is obviously not a Credit Support Provider.
-:“Parties to an {{isdama}} should not, however, be identified as {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s with respect to the Annex, ''as such term is intended only to apply to third parties''.”
+A {{nycsa}}, on the other hand, ''is'' a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. So should a Party to the {{isdama}}, where there is a {{nycsa}}, be described as a “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"?
-the Users’ Guide to the {{2002ma}} is similarly emphatically vague: “The meaning of “{{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}” ... should apply to any person or entity (''other than any either party'') providing , or a party to, a Credit Support Document delivered on behalf of a particular party.”
+''No'', sayeth the User’s Guide to the {{1994csa}}:
+{{quote|“Parties to an {{isdama}} should not, however, be identified as {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s with respect to the Annex, ''as such term is intended only to apply to third parties''.”}}
-Does this mean that a {{nycsa}} is a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, but the person providing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support}} under it is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}? Or not?
+the Users’ Guide to the {{2002ma}} is similarly emphatically vague:
+{{quote|“The meaning of “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}” ... should apply to any person or entity (''other than either party'') providing, or a party to, a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} delivered on behalf of a particular party.”}}
+This means that a {{nycsa}} is a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, but the person providing {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support}} under it — is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}? Or not?
 So that’s cleared that up, then.