83,049
edits
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 5(a)(v): Difference between revisions
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 5(a)(v) (view source)
Revision as of 14:26, 23 September 2020
, 23 September 2020→Default under any {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}, and the question of overreach
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Default under ''any'' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}, and the question of overreach=== | ===Default under ''any'' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}, and the question of overreach=== | ||
{{isdaprov|DUST}} attaches to a “default” (not defined) under ''any'' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}, and (other than under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}}(3) for delivery failures) not ''''all''''' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s. But if you have a credit concern with a counterparty under a derivative-like master agreement — even on a failure to pay — you are hardly likely to be closing out some, but not other transactions. Especially not now in these days of compulsory regulatory [[variation margin]]. You’ll be closing out the lot. Yet, with different rules depending on whether its a failure to pay (before or at maturity), failure to deliver or repudiation, we think {{icds}} has made it all a bit fiddly. They may be strictly correct, but come ''on''. | {{isdaprov|DUST}} attaches to a “default” (not defined) under ''any'' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}, and (other than under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}}(3) for delivery failures) not '''''all''''' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s. But if you have a credit concern with a counterparty under a derivative-like master agreement — even on a failure to pay — you are hardly likely to be closing out some, but not other transactions. Especially not now in these days of compulsory regulatory [[variation margin]]. You’ll be closing out the lot. Yet, with different rules depending on whether its a failure to pay (before or at maturity), failure to deliver or repudiation, we think {{icds}} has made it all a bit fiddly. They may be strictly correct, but come ''on''. | ||
So we have a lot of sympathy with the point, pedantic though it may be, that the [[DUST]] formulation could be simplified for transactions under any master agreement — even for repudiation — by requiring the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}} to have closed out the whole arrangement, not just the {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} itself. An amendment to the following effect, rendered in ISDA’s leaden prose, wouldn’t be out of the question: | So we have a lot of sympathy with the point, pedantic though it may be, that the [[DUST]] formulation could be simplified for transactions under any master agreement — even for repudiation — by requiring the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}} to have closed out the whole arrangement, not just the {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} itself. An amendment to the following effect, rendered in ISDA’s leaden prose, wouldn’t be out of the question: | ||