Isda Master Agreement Bahasa Indonesia

24th September 2021

Isda Master Agreement Bahasa Indonesia

posted in Uncategorized |

Figure 1 shows how a CSA could work. The company at the top left has just been downgraded from the investment level to a BB+ rating, and the bank counterparty warns them that: a) they have breached the terms of their CSA; and b) they have to deposit additional collateral because trading – or the net of all their ongoing trades with that counterparty – is no longer in the money. The main thing to remember in Figure 1 is that the Bank has ISDA agreements with all participants, whereas sole proprietorships usually only have one ISDA agreement with the bank or possibly several bank counter-parties. Sole proprietorships do not have as many ISDA agreements as the bank counter-party with other business customers. The publication of the agreement marks the culmination of several years of work and discussions between ISDA, IIFM, market participants and consultants to establish an agreement that meets the requirements of Sharia law, but is at the same time familiar to people active in derivatives markets. Allen &Overy LLP contributed significantly to the development of the agreement. The agreement introduces the concept of future transactions designed. These are either transactions that the parties agree to enter into at a later date, or transactions that one part of the other party will subsequently make, in accordance with a wa`ad, upon the election of the other party. The agreement relating to the conclusion of such transactions is called the DFT conditionality agreement. Future transactions are confirmed by a confirmation of DFT conditions.

Until their conclusion, the designated futures transactions do not constitute transactions within the meaning of the agreement and are therefore treated differently from the transactions concluded (in particular with regard to the close-out). However, futures transactions once concluded constitute transactions within the meaning of the agreement. Ibid., article 33, in the case of the acquisition of security rights as the property of the collateral taker and the offsetting of their value against the obligations in question or when applying their value to or performance of the obligations in question, provided that the contract of guarantee provides for such exploitation and establishes the basis on which the security rights are to be valued for that purpose. . . .

This entry was posted on Friday, September 24th, 2021 at 9:09 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.