Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2 (view source)

Revision as of 08:33, 20 May 2023

138 bytes removed , 20 May 2023

Searching out embedded templates in CDD summ

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,893

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[4.2 - Credit Derivatives Provision|Differences]] with Section {{c|Embedded Template}}{{isdaprov|5(a)(vii)}}:
+[[4.2 - Credit Derivatives Provision|Differences]] with Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(vii)}}:
-*Doesn’t cover {{c|Embedded Template}}{{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{c|Embedded Template}}{{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private [[OTC]] bilateral trading agreement, like an {{c|Embedded Template}}{{isdama}} which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers [[credit derivative]]s) nor guarantors (except where the {{c|Embedded Template}}{{cddprov|Reference Entity}} is itself the guarantor). A [[CDS]] being, per the [[Potts opinion]], a ''derivative'' of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the {{c|Embedded Template}}{{cddprov|Buyer}} has no necessary “[[insurable interest]]”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, [[credit support provider]]s and so on doesn’t come into it.
+*Doesn’t cover {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private [[OTC]] bilateral trading agreement, like an {{isdama}} which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers [[credit derivative]]s) nor guarantors (except where the {{cddprov|Reference Entity}} is itself the guarantor). A [[CDS]] being, per the [[Potts opinion]], a ''derivative'' of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the {{cddprov|Buyer}} has no necessary “[[insurable interest]]”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, [[credit support provider]]s and so on doesn’t come into it.
 *Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”.
 *No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.