|
|
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{csaanat|6|2016}} | | {{Manual|MCAE|1995|6|Paragraph|7|short}} |
| This clause explains how you value the {{csa}} itself — being a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} in its own right, of course — when closing out an {{isdama}}. The basic gist is that you treat the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance (VM)}} as of the {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} — being the total value of the {{csaprov|Credit Support}} you have ponied up at any time — as an {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}, rather than treating is as a contingent return obligation, the present value of which would go into the {{isdaprov|Close-Out Amount}}<ref>Or {{isdaprov|Loss}}, or {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, if you still labour under an antediluvian {{1992ma}}.</ref>.
| |
| | |
| ===Why {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s and not {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s?===
| |
| The {{csa}} is technically a Transaction under the {{isdama}} in its own right — that is deep ISDA lore — but it is still a ''weird'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, and the standard replacement cost methodology doesn’t work brilliantly for it: rather than having defined payments upfront, each of which can be valued and discounted back to a given date to reveal a present value, payment obligations under a {{csa}} are entirely dependent on the future performance of the ''other'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s in the portfolio under your {{isdama}}. So good luck determining the replacement value of something like that.
| |
| | |
| But the good news is you don’t have to: the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}} isn’t calculated by reference to its own discounted future cashflows: rather, it is just the inverse of the aggregate present value of all the other Transactions under the ISDA. So the “replacement cost” on any day is just the prevailing value of the {{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}. It is therefore easier to treat that as an {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}} (none of this tedious mucking about with replacement costs and so on). But that means you have to deem the {{isdaprov|Close-Out Amount}}<ref>Or {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, if under a {{1992ma}}. Loss, of course, includes the concept of Unpaid Amounts in the definition: “{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} and not made...” </ref> as zero.
| |
| | |
| ===Including “comprehensive” {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s===
| |
| Consider expanding of the {{csaprov|Default}} provision under Paragraph {{csaprov|6}} of the {{tag|CSA}} to include “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s where all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s”. This is as per Section 3.2 of the 2001 ISDA Margin Provisions which recommend that Paragraph {{csaprov|6}} of the {{tag|CSA}} should apply where all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are closed out following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or “Specified Condition” — the latter of which is defined to include the {{isdaprov|Termination Events}} listed under the {{isdama}}. It is likely that all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s would be {{isdaprov|Affected Transactions}} should a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} occur.
| |
| | |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}
| |
| | |
| {{ref}}
| |
1995 ISDA Credit Support Annex (English Law)
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™
Resources and navigation
Paragraph 6 in a Nutshell™
Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Paragraph 6
|
Content and comparisons
Template:M comp disc 1995 CSA 6
Summary
Template:M summ 1995 CSA 6
See also
References