82,891
edits
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Specified Transaction: Difference between revisions
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Specified Transaction (view source)
Revision as of 18:25, 8 March 2022
, 8 March 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with " Used in the {{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}} — fondly known to those in the know as “{{is...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Used in the {{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}} — fondly known to those in the know as “{{isdaprov|DUST}}”. | |||
===Credit support annexes?=== | |||
[[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 to any such transaction)” is, if not deliberately ''designed'' that way, is at least ''[[calculated]]''<ref>In the sense of being “likely”.</ref> to capture failures under a [[credit support annex]] which, yes, is a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under an {{isdama}} but no, is not really a swap or anything really like one. | |||
There is enough chat about {{isdaprov|Credit support Provider}}s (yes, yes, the counterparty itself is of course not a {{isdaprov|Credit support Provider}}) to make us think, on a [[fair, large and liberal]] interpretation, that a default under the [[CSA]] to a swap {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is meant to be covered. | |||
===What?=== | ===What?=== | ||
{{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s are those financial markets transactions between you and your counterparty ''other than those under the present {{isdama}}'', default under which justifies the wronged party closing out the present {{isda}}. “Specified Transactions” therefore specifically ''exclude'' {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under the ISDA itself for the sensible reason that a default under those is covered by by {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Obligation}}. It might lead to a perverse result if misadventure under an {{isdama}} {{isdaprov|Transaction}} which did not otherwise amount to an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, became one purely as a result of the {{isdaprov|DUST}} provision, however unlikely that may be. | {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s are those financial markets transactions between you and your counterparty ''other than those under the present {{isdama}}'', default under which justifies the wronged party closing out the present {{isda}}. “Specified Transactions” therefore specifically ''exclude'' {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under the ISDA itself for the sensible reason that a default under those is covered by by {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Obligation}}. It might lead to a perverse result if misadventure under an {{isdama}} {{isdaprov|Transaction}} which did not otherwise amount to an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, became one purely as a result of the {{isdaprov|DUST}} provision, however unlikely that may be. | ||