Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Applicable Deferral Rate: Difference between revisions

Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Applicable Deferral Rate (view source)

Revision as of 17:52, 14 April 2020

No change in size , 14 April 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,964

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Actually there are ''three'' {{isdaprov|Applicable Deferral Rate}}s, depending on why a payment was deferred, and how long it has been deferred for.
-*(a) If it is a {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} deferral, it is the actual rate the payer — being the one suspending the payment as a result of the other’s failure, of course — obtains in good faith in the inter-bank market.
+:(a) If it is a {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} deferral, it is the actual rate the payer — being the one suspending the payment as a result of the other’s failure, of course — obtains in good faith in the inter-bank market.
-*(b) If it is a deferral during a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} or {{isdaprov|Illegality}} waiting period, it’s that rate, only the payee gets to be consulted with about ''which'' bank it is. Yes, i know: — like, ''wow''.
+:(b) If it is a deferral during a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} or {{isdaprov|Illegality}} waiting period, it’s that rate, only the payee gets to be consulted with about ''which'' bank it is. Yes, i know: — like, ''wow''.
-*(c) If the {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}} has expired but the {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} which is preventing the payment subsists, it is the average of the ''first'' such rate (that is, the one without consultation, so I suppose the payer can run off to a different bank, even though it consulted with the payee on the bank it used for the {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}}), but then it has to average that out against the payee’s cost of funding the amount it hasn’t received as a result of the suspension.
+:(c) If the {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}} has expired but the {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} which is preventing the payment subsists, it is the average of the ''first'' such rate (that is, the one without consultation, so I suppose the payer can run off to a different bank, even though it consulted with the payee on the bank it used for the {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}}), but then it has to average that out against the payee’s cost of funding the amount it hasn’t received as a result of the suspension.
 This might make sense as a piece of crystalline intellectual logic — so does an [[Yngwie Malmsteen]] guitar solo — but practically you have to wonder whether {{icds}} hadn’t been hooking into the brandy a bit before knock-off time. I mean what on Earth were they thinking?