|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Specified Transaction - ISDA Provision|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}}”.
| | {{isda Specified Transaction summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| ====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.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ====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.
| |