Template:Isdaguaranteewarning: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Should a client request a {{isdaprov|transaction}}-specific parental {{isdaprov|guarantee}} under an {{isdama}} instead of the usual “all obligations” guarantee of all obl...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Should a client request a {{isdaprov|transaction}}-specific parental {{isdaprov|guarantee}} under an {{isdama}} instead of the usual “all obligations” guarantee of all obligations under the {{isdama}} and all transactions under it, escalate immediately.  
Should a client request a {{isdaprov|transaction}}-specific parental {{isdaprov|guarantee}} (or [[letter of credit]]) for a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under an {{isdama}} instead of the usual [[all obligations guarantee|“all obligations” guarantee]] of all the counterparty’s obligations under the {{isdama}}, hit the alarm button.  


'''Never''' agree to the {{isdaprov|guarantee}} of individual {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s (or accepting [[letter of credit|Letters of Credit]] with respect to individual transactions) under an [[ISDA]]. The reason relates to the way {{isdama}}s are closed out:
You should *never* agree to the {{isdaprov|guarantee}} of individual {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s (nor accept a [[letter of credit]] with respect to individual {{isdaprov|Transactions}}) under an {{isdama}}. If you do, because of the way {{isdama}}s are closed out under Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} — or rather, ''aren't'' closed out, you might find that just when you want your guarantee to pay, the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} it is guaranteeing isn’t there anymore:


*On a [[Close-out Amount - ISDA Provision|close-out]] of an {{isdama}}, each transaction is terminated, the individual [[Close-out Amount - ISDA Provision|close-out amounts]] are determined, they’re aggregated up to a single net sum (i.e. negative exposures are netted off against positive ones) and the single {{isdaprov|Early Termination Payment}} is payable under {{isdaprov|6(e)}} ({{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}}) of the {{isdama}}.  
On a close-out, each {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is terminated, the individual close-out amounts are determined, they’re aggregated up to a single net sum (i.e. negative exposures are netted off against positive ones) and a single {{isdaprov|Close Out Amount}} is payable with respect to ''all terminated {{isdaprov|Transactions}}'' under {{isdaprov|6(e)}} ({{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}}) of the {{isdama}}.<ref>The {{isdama}} itself is never actually terminated, but carries impotently on in undead twilight, roaming the badlands like [[Nosferatu]] or the [[Flying Dutchman]], unloved, unredeemed, until the [[end of days]].</ref>


*That is to say, it is '''not''' payable under the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} at all - it’s payable under the {{isdama}} itself.  
That is to say, payments following termination of a Transaction are *not* payable under the {{isdaprov|Transaction}} at all - they are payable under the {{isdama}} itself. Therefore, if the [[guarantee]] relates to the single {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, at the point you wish to rely on it (i.e., upon the party’s default), it will have gone, with no payment required. Vanished, like tears in the rain. <br>
 
*Therefore, if the {{isdaprov|guarantee}} relates to the single {{isdaprov|Transaction}} only, at precisely the point you wish to rely on it (i.e., upon that party’s [[Event of Default - ISDA Provision|default]]), it will vanish.  
 
Same goes for [[Letter of credit|Letters of credit]].

Revision as of 08:50, 25 June 2019

Should a client request a transaction-specific parental guarantee (or letter of credit) for a Transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement instead of the usual “all obligations” guarantee of all the counterparty’s obligations under the ISDA Master Agreement, hit the alarm button.

You should *never* agree to the guarantee of individual Transactions (nor accept a letter of credit with respect to individual Transactions) under an ISDA Master Agreement. If you do, because of the way ISDA Master Agreements are closed out under Section 6(e) — or rather, aren't closed out, you might find that just when you want your guarantee to pay, the Transaction it is guaranteeing isn’t there anymore:

On a close-out, each Transaction is terminated, the individual close-out amounts are determined, they’re aggregated up to a single net sum (i.e. negative exposures are netted off against positive ones) and a single Close Out Amount is payable with respect to all terminated Transactions under 6(e) (Payments on Early Termination) of the ISDA Master Agreement.[1]

That is to say, payments following termination of a Transaction are *not* payable under the Transaction at all - they are payable under the ISDA Master Agreement itself. Therefore, if the guarantee relates to the single Transaction, at the point you wish to rely on it (i.e., upon the party’s default), it will have gone, with no payment required. Vanished, like tears in the rain.

  1. The ISDA Master Agreement itself is never actually terminated, but carries impotently on in undead twilight, roaming the badlands like Nosferatu or the Flying Dutchman, unloved, unredeemed, until the end of days.