Settlement Amount - 1992 ISDA Provision

1992 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Settlement Amount in a Nutshell™ The JC’s Nutshell™ summary of this term has moved uptown to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get it here. Sign up at Substack. You can even ask questions! Ask about it here. Settlement Amount in all its glory “Settlement Amount” means, with respect to a party and any Early Termination Date, the sum of: — (a) the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Market Quotations (whether positive or negative) for each Terminated Transaction or group of Terminated Transactions for which a Market Quotation is determined; and (b) such party’s Loss (whether positive or negative and without reference to any Unpaid Amounts) for each Terminated Transaction or group of Terminated Transactions for which a Market Quotation cannot be determined or would not (in the reasonable belief of the party making the determination) produce a commercially reasonable result. edit Related agreements and comparisons Related Agreements Click here for the text of Section Settlement Amount in the 2002 ISDA Comparisons Template:Isdadiff Settlement Amount Resources and Navigation Resources Wikitext | Nutshell wikitext | 2002 ISDA wikitext | 2002 vs 1992 Showdown | 2006 ISDA Definitions | 2008 ISDA Navigation Preamble | 1 • (a) (b) (c) | 2 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 3 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) | 4 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 5 • 5(a) Events of Default: 5(a)(i) Failure to Pay or Deliver 5(a)(ii) Breach of Agreement 5(a)(iii) Credit Support Default 5(a)(iv) Misrepresentation 5(a)(v) Default Under Specified Transaction 5(a)(vi) Cross Default 5(a)(vii) Bankruptcy 5(a)(viii) Merger Without Assumption 5(b) Termination Events: 5(b)(i) Illegality 5(b)(ii) Tax Event 5(b)(iii) Tax Event Upon Merger 5(b)(iv) Credit Event Upon Merger 5(b)(v) Additional Termination Event (c) | 6 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 7 | 8 • (a) (b) (c) (d) | 9 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) | 10 | 11 | 12 • (a) (b) | 13 • (a) (b) (c) (d) | 14 | Index: Click ᐅ to expand: 2002 ISDA 1992 ISDA Premium version of this page

Overview

edit

As the left-handed policeman said when you asked for directions, “well, I wouldn’t start from here”.

This is the closest you’ll get to the Close-out Amount in the 1992 ISDA, but it only applies to Market Quotation and not Loss — though in a pitiless irony, its practical effect is that you will find yourself using Loss even though you chose Market Quotation in any case. In most cases, the world will have long since arrived at hell in its hand-basket by the time you get to refer to this clause, no Reference Market-maker worth a tuppenny damn will be quoting Monty Python let alone firm prices on your portfolio of Terminated Transactions, so the whole intellectual edifice of Market Quotation will have long since collapsed into Loss and the mechanics of this Settlement Amount will be totes academic.

For the full picture see Section 6(e)(i). A conclusion you may feel bound to draw, even if it doesn’t help you as you manhandle the grizzly bear of a termination process in the 1992 ISDA, is that it is much, much easier in the 2002 ISDA.

Summary

edit

Settlement Amount only applies to Transaction terminations where Market Quotation is the nominated valuation methodology. In the astoundingly unlikely circumstances that there is not a Reference Market-maker on the Lord’s green planet with the time, risk tolerance or general inclination to give you, a competitor, a series of firm quotes on your portfolio that she knows you have no interest in actually hitting — let alone four of the blighters — that this provision has the effect of converting a Market Quotation into, for all intents and purposes, Loss, though — and, viewers, it pains me to have to say this because it is so stupid, but I have to because it is true — your measure of Loss is defined to include Unpaid Amounts where you have elected full-blown Loss in your Schedule, but Loss excludes Unpaid Amounts if you elected Market Quotation but wound up at Loss because, stap me vitals,m you couldn’t get enough quotations from Reference Market-makers to make up a Market Quotation.

So, if you are a true Loss person, you don’t have to adjust Unpaid Amounts because they’re embedded in the definition of Loss, but if you’re a Loss-via-a-failed-Market Quotation person, you have to add/subtract Unpaid Amounts independently.

But in any case you will wind up at the same number.

This is just some ghastly intellectual game played on we wanton boys and girls by the derivative gods.

Premium content

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇

• The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause

edit

See also

edit

• Closing out a 1992 ISDA
• The 2002 ISDA’s equivalent Close-Out Amount.