지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Little attention has been given to the possibility that CDS transactions might be construed as insurance contracts in English law. This article challenges the widespread “Potts opinion”, which states that CDSs are not insurance, because they do not require the protection buyer to sustain a loss or to have an insurable interest in the subject matter. CDSs often do provide protection against loss that the buyer is exposed to; loss indemnity is not a necessary characterisation of an insurance contract; insurable interest does not form part of the definition of insurance, but is an additional requirement of valid insurance; and what matters is the substance not the form of the contract. The situation in the US and Australia is also briefly considered.
It is normally thought that credit default swaps (CDSs) are not insurance contracts, but careful analysis reveals major weaknesses in this position. Whether or not CDSs are insurance is an issue of significant implications. If a court would answer that question in the affirmative, many outstanding CDS contracts might be null and void, and possibly illegal.1 There would also be other implications such as those concerning accounting rules, taxation, reserves regulation and the doctrine of utmost good faith.
This article challenges the well-known “Potts opinion”, which says that CDSs are not insurance in English law. London is a leading centre of CDS contracting activity and a large part of the business is documented under English law. Much of the analysis can be applied to other jurisdictions too, but there are also differences. The article does not discuss the broader question of whether or not CDS contracts should be defined and regulated as insurance by way of specific legislation; nor does it investigate the extent to which the same analysis can be applied to other types of credit derivatives.
It is normally thought that credit default swaps (CDSs) are not insurance contracts, but careful analysis reveals major weaknesses in this position. Whether or not CDSs are insurance is an issue of significant implications. If a court would answer that question in the affirmative, many outstanding CDS contracts might be null and void, and possibly illegal.1 There would also be other implications such as those concerning accounting rules, taxation, reserves regulation and the doctrine of utmost good faith.
This article challenges the well-known “Potts opinion”, which says that CDSs are not insurance in English law. London is a leading centre of CDS contracting activity and a large part of the business is documented under English law. Much of the analysis can be applied to other jurisdictions too, but there are also differences. The article does not discuss the broader question of whether or not CDS contracts should be defined and regulated as insurance by way of specific legislation; nor does it investigate the extent to which the same analysis can be applied to other types of credit derivatives.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 포츠의견서와 `손해전보기준`의 생성
Ⅲ. 뉴욕주보험법상 `손해전보기준`의 전개
Ⅳ. 뉴욕주보험법에서의 `손해전보기준`의 재구축
Ⅴ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
강원랜드 카지노리조트호텔의 고객경험이 만족 및 충성도에 미치는 영향 : 사전기대의 조절효과를 중심으로
이정자
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
확장된 기술수용 모델을 적용한 스마트폰 외식정보 서비스 사용자의 수용태도에 관한 연구
김용일
,
임재문
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
호텔기업의 문화마케팅이 기업브랜드이미지와 관계지속의도에 미치는 영향 연구 : 사회적 책임활동(CSR) 중 자선적 책임인식의 조절효과
안소영
,
한진수
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
컨벤션호텔 서비스 속성별 만족 유형에 따른 MICE 참가자시장세분화 연구 : 강원지역 MICE 참가자를 대상으로
지계웅
,
한진영
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
외식 영양표시에 대한 소비자의 인지도 및 만족도 조사
정유선
,
함선옥
,
양일선
외 1명
호텔경영학연구
2014
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-300-002822680