Template:M detail 2002 ISDA Affected Party: Difference between revisions

Template:M detail 2002 ISDA Affected Party (view source)

Revision as of 08:53, 29 February 2020

228 bytes added , 29 February 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,228

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Just who was the affected party and how an affected transaction was valued and terminated used to be much more of a source of controversy in the heyday of is negotiation than it is today.
+In the heyday of ISDA negotiation<ref>For the record, I put the [[golden age of ISDA negotiation]] as late 90s, early noughties. We were young, carefree, crazy kids.</ref> just who was the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} and how one should value and terminate an {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}} used to be much more of a source of controversy than it is today.
-This might be a function of the markets general move to the {{2002ma}} closeout methodology, which is generally far less fraught and bamboozling, refraining as it does from absurdities like the {{isda92prov|First Method}} and alternative {{isda92prov|Market}} and {{isda92prov|Loss}}  methods of valuing replacement transactions. Even those who insist on staying with the {{1992ma}} are often persuaded to upgrade the closeout methodology.
+This might be a function of the market’s general move to the {{2002ma}} closeout methodology, being far less fraught and bamboozling then the one in the {{1992ma}}, refraining as it does from absurdities like the {{isda92prov|First Method}} and alternative {{isda92prov|Market}} and {{isda92prov|Loss}} methods of valuing replacement transactions. Even those who insist on staying with the {{1992ma}} — Hello, Cleveland! — are often persuaded to upgrade the closeout methodology.
-It might also be that the specific expertise as to what happens in a close out as dissipated in the market as banks have outsourced and down skilled the negotiation functions.
+It might also be that the specific expertise as to what happens in a close out has dissipated over the years as banks have [[outsourced]] and [[downskilled]] their negotiation functions.
 But the JC likes to think that in this mature market, the [[commercial imperative]] plays a part here. {{isdaprov|Termination Events}} come in two types: catastrophic ones, which signal the end of the relationship — and usually the ongoing viability of one of the counterparties — altogether; and and {{isdaprov|Transaction}}-specific ones, which no-one intended or wanted, everyone regrets, but which will soon be water under the bridge, for parties who will continue to trade new derivatives into glorious, golden perpetuity.