Template:Isda Credit Support Provider summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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 {{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}}"? | ||
'''No''', sayeth the | '''No''', sayeth the User’s Guide to the {{1994csa}}: | ||
:“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''.” | :“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''.” | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 12 January 2022
A 1995 CSA is not a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} at all, but a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} under the ISDA Master Agreement. A 1994 New York law CSA, on the other hand, is a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} though. Should a Party to the ISDA Master Agreement, where there is a 1994 New York law CSA, be described as a “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}"?
No, sayeth the User’s Guide to the 1994 NY CSA:
- “Parties to an ISDA Master Agreement 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.”
the Users’ Guide to the 2002 ISDA is similarly emphatically vague: “The meaning of “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.”
Does this mean that a 1994 New York law CSA 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.