82,882
edits
Undead ISDA: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
This unnerves those of delicate or superstitious mien. For if it is still there, however immobile, can it not cause [[Financial weapons of mass destruction|mass destruction]] through inattention? | This unnerves those of delicate or superstitious mien. For if it is still there, however immobile, can it not cause [[Financial weapons of mass destruction|mass destruction]] through inattention? | ||
Some would say this is a non-point, as un-alive as the ISDA that presents it. For an ISDA under which there are no extant {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s carries no financial obligations | Some would say this is a non-point, as un-alive as the ISDA that presents it. For an [[ISDA]], under which there are no extant {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s, carries no financial obligations. It presents no [[risk]]. It is as safe as a rusty Luger with the firing pin removed. | ||
You may laugh, but note only this: they who so haughtily wave such trifles away yet still go quiet and dare not speak of the [[Dark Lord]]. | If no {{isdaprov|Transactions}} remain that one can [[close out]], what earthly concern is it, for either party, if notional non-payment obligations go unfulfilled? What kind of paranoid weirdo would take the point that one’s continuing [[covenant]]s — to [[Documents for Delivery - ISDA Provision|send annual reports within three months of their publication]], for good example — are being broken?<ref>Only a person yet to meet an [[internal audit]]or could ask that question.</ref> And what of those financial ''meta''-obligations? That two-edged {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} clause? ''Could it'' ... ? | ||
You may laugh, but note only this: they who so haughtily wave such trifles away yet still go quiet and dare not speak of the [[Dark Lord of the Swaps]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||