Template:M sa 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii)

Revision as of 07:28, 30 January 2020 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Are there flawed asset clauses in other master agreements? *'''{{gmsla}}''': As far as I can see there is no direct {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} equivalent in the GMSLA, but Sec...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Are there flawed asset clauses in other master agreements?

  • 2010 GMSLA: As far as I can see there is no direct 2(a)(iii) equivalent in the GMSLA, but Section 8.6, which allows you to suspend payment if you suspect your counterparty’s creditworthiness, is the closest, but it isn't a flawed asset clause. Nor would you expect one. It makes little sense in a master agreement for transactions that generally have zero or short tenors, and are inherently margined daily as a matter of course – i.e., there are no “uncollateralised, large, out-of-the-money exposures” an innocent stock lender would want to protect with such a flawed asset provision.
  • Global Master Repurchase Agreement: Now here’s the funny thing. Even though the GMRA is comparable to the GMSLA in most meaningful ways, it does have a flawed asset provision. I don’t understand it, but that is true about much of the world of international finance.