Template:M summ 1992 ISDA Specified Transaction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "We are going to go out on a limb here and say that little parenthetical “(including an agreement with respect thereto)” is, if not deliberately ''designed'' that way, is a...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We are going to go out on a limb here and say that little parenthetical “(including an agreement with respect thereto)” is, if not deliberately ''designed'' that way, is at least ''[[calculated]]''<ref>In the sense of being “likely”.</ref> to capture the {{isda92prov|Credit Support Annex}} which, yes, is a Transaction under an {{isdama}} but no, is not really a swap or anything really like one. There is enough chat about Credit support Providers (yes, yes, the counterparty itself is of course not a Credit support Provider) to make us think, on a [[fair, large and liberal]] interpretation, that a default under the [[CSA]] to a swap {{isda92prov|Transaction}} is meant to be covered. | [[Specified Transaction - 1992 ISDA Provision|We]] are going to go out on a limb here and say that little parenthetical “(including an agreement with respect thereto)” is, if not deliberately ''designed'' that way, is at least ''[[calculated]]''<ref>In the sense of being “likely”.</ref> to capture the {{isda92prov|Credit Support Annex}} which, yes, is a Transaction under an {{isdama}} but no, is not really a swap or anything really like one. There is enough chat about Credit support Providers (yes, yes, the counterparty itself is of course not a Credit support Provider) to make us think, on a [[fair, large and liberal]] interpretation, that a default under the [[CSA]] to a swap {{isda92prov|Transaction}} is meant to be covered. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:23, 8 March 2022
We are going to go out on a limb here and say that little parenthetical “(including an agreement with respect thereto)” is, if not deliberately designed that way, is at least calculated[1] to capture the Credit Support Annex which, yes, is a Transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement but no, is not really a swap or anything really like one. There is enough chat about Credit support Providers (yes, yes, the counterparty itself is of course not a Credit support Provider) to make us think, on a fair, large and liberal interpretation, that a default under the CSA to a swap Transaction is meant to be covered.
- ↑ In the sense of being “likely”.