Second Method - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Termination Payment}}s due upon close out of an {{isdama}}. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment ''to'' the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}. By contrast, in the {{isdaprov|First Method}}, a payment is only ever made by the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} to the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}. Which is a bit rubbish, and plays havoc with capital adequacy calculations.
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Termination Payment}}s due upon close out of an {{isdama}}. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment ''to'' the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}.  
In case of a termination event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.  


In case of a termination event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.  
*'''{{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}''' requires at least three arm's length quotations to value the transactions to be terminated, compared to {{isdaprov|Loss}} where the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting party}} determines (in "[[good faith]]") the losses and costs (minus its gains) in potentially replacing {{isdaprov|Terminated Transactions}}.


*'''{{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}''' requires at least three arm's length quotations to value the transactions to be terminated, compared to {{isdaprov|Loss}} where the Non-defaulting party determines (in "[[good faith]]") the losses and costs (minus its gains) in potentially replacing {{isdaprov|Terminated Transactions}}.
*'''{{isdaprov|Second Method}}''': the net [[close-out]] amount is always paid out to the party to whom it is due, regardless whether it is the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting party}}.  


*'''{{isdaprov|Second Method}}''': the net [[close-out]] amount is always paid out to the party to which it is due, regardless whether it is the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting party}}. {{isdaprov|First Method}} is a backdoor to withhold payments due under the {{isdama}} and set those off with other (possible) defaulted payments and is therefore undesirable.
===The First Method===
Not generally used, under the {{isdaprov|First Method}}, a payment is only ever made by the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} to the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}. Which is a bit rubbish, and plays havoc with capital adequacy calculations. The {{isdaprov|First Method}} is thus a back door to withhold payments due under the {{isdama}} and set those off with other (possible) defaulted payments and is therefore undesirable.
===See also===
===See also===
*{{isdaprov|General Conditions}} - the ominous subject of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} and the [[Metavante]] case.
*{{isdaprov|General Conditions}} - the ominous subject of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} and the [[Metavante]] case.


{{isdaanatomy}}
{{isdaanatomy}}

Revision as of 16:50, 1 February 2016

The Second Method is a method of determining the Termination Payments due upon close out of an ISDA Master Agreement. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment to the Defaulting Party. In case of a termination event under the ISDA Master Agreement it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section Payments on Early Termination (ISDA Master Agreement Section 6(e) and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.

The First Method

Not generally used, under the First Method, a payment is only ever made by the Defaulting Party to the Non-defaulting Party. Which is a bit rubbish, and plays havoc with capital adequacy calculations. The First Method is thus a back door to withhold payments due under the ISDA Master Agreement and set those off with other (possible) defaulted payments and is therefore undesirable.

See also