Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(iii): Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled swap, and for a host of reasons a physicsally sett...")
 
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Not generally stipulated as an Additional Disruption Event because firstly it would only be relevant in a physically-settled swap, and for a host of reasons a physicsally settled synthetic instrument is a bit of a contradiction in terms — and in any case a settlement failure due to illiquidity is a racingly certain prospect in certain stock lines, and is more the rule than the exception in others, and is generally dealt with through buy-ins.
[[Failure to Deliver - Equity Derivatives Provision|Not]] generally stipulated as an {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}} because firstly it would only be relevant in a [[physically-settled]] equity swap, and for a host of reasons taking physical settlement at the conclusion of a synthetic transaction, whose point is partly to avoid a physical exposure, is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Now where you do, for reasons best known to yourself, elect physical settlement this provision allows the innocent party to buy-in and charge any cost differential to the failing party.
 
You may want to head over to {{eqderivprov|Consequences of Failure to Deliver}} under {{eqderivprov|12.9(b)(ii)}}, where you will discover that {{icds}} have ploughed their own long, lonely, weird furrow about how to resolve settlement failures instead of copying what the cash equity markets and stock lending markets do. They’re fun like that, are [[the ’squad]].