Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 6(d): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "This clause has nothing to do with grace periods and everything to do with {{isdaprov|Loss}} and {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} ({{1992ma}}) or {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This clause has nothing to do with [[grace period]]s and everything to do with {{ | This clause has nothing to do with [[grace period]]s and everything to do with working out the termination value of Transactions for which you’ve just designated an Early Termination Date - in the {{1992ma}} using {{isda92prov|Loss}} and {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}}, and all that Second Method malarkey (in the {{2002ma}} thje much neater and tidier {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} concept. This is good fat tail paranoia material, so expect to see it modified. | ||
A popular parlour game | A popular parlour game among those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up their chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the {{1992ma}} to the {{2002ma}} standard except the one provision of the {{1992ma}} they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the [[Treasury]] department, that will be the longer [[grace period]] in the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}; if she is from [[Credit department|Credit]], it absolutely won’t be. | ||
You might well ask why, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''. Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, you’d retrofit longer grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no). | You might well ask why anyone would be so bloody-minded, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''. | ||
Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, you’d retrofit ''longer'' grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no). | |||
Revision as of 12:24, 13 March 2020
This clause has nothing to do with grace periods and everything to do with working out the termination value of Transactions for which you’ve just designated an Early Termination Date - in the 1992 ISDA using Loss and Market Quotation, and all that Second Method malarkey (in the 2002 ISDA thje much neater and tidier Close-out Amount concept. This is good fat tail paranoia material, so expect to see it modified.
A popular parlour game among those pedants who still insist on using the 1992 ISDA[1] is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the 1992 ISDA to the 2002 ISDA standard except the one provision of the 1992 ISDA they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the Treasury department, that will be the longer grace period in the Failure to Pay; if she is from Credit, it absolutely won’t be.
You might well ask why anyone would be so bloody-minded, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the Fast and Furious franchise. Because they can.
Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous grace periods for Failure to Pay[2] and Bankruptcy[3] (in which case, you’d retrofit longer grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no).