|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | {{isda Specified Transaction summ|isdaprov}} |
| 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}}”.
| |
| ===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.
| |
| | |
| ===Enter the fiddlers===
| |
| ISDA’s verbal profligacy won’t stop enthusiastic credit officers amplifying the list even further, of course. What about [[precious metals|precious metal]] transactions? {{tag|Letter of credit}} reimbursement obligations? [[Indebtedness]]? What indeed?
| |
| | |
| ====An odd [[cognitive dissonance]]====
| |
| The framers of {{dust}} ''deliberately'' neglected to include [[borrowed money]] or [[indebtedness]], because these are picked up under the wider scope of the {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} provision which, of course, applies to indebtedness your counterparty owes to ''anyone'', not just you. Still, there is weirdness: {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} contemplates a {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}} before it can be triggered. {{isdaprov|DUST}} doesn’t. So this leads to an odd gap:
| |
| | |
| *A (sub {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}) default under {{isdaprov|Specified Indebtedness}} ''between the two contractual parties'' would not entitle the innocent party to close out;
| |
| *A default under ''any other {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}'' between them ''would'' ''''' even if a smaller quantum of default'''''. This is kind of counterintuitive. If you were to define {{dust}} to include indebtedness, of course, you'd be covered.
| |