83,360
edits
Template:Emissions force majeure overview: Difference between revisions
Template:Emissions force majeure overview (view source)
Revision as of 15:06, 19 October 2023
, 19 October 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Functionally, the definitions of | Functionally, the definitions of “{{{{{1}}}|Force Majeure}}” under Clause {{efetaprov|7.1}} the [[EFET Allowances Annex|EFET Annex]] and Clause {{ietaprov|13}} of the [[IETA Master Agreement|IETA]], and the definition of “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}” under {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{euadefs}} are the same — here is a {{diff|77069|77068}} between IETA and EFET, and here is a {{diff||}} between EFET and ISDA — so you do wonder whose idea it was to call it something different. | ||
Let us speculate: the IETA was written first, is independent of the {{isda}} universe, and for reasons best known to IETA’s {{Cds}}, they decided to call this a “Force Majeure”. Being an event beyond the reasonable control of the affected party there is some logic to this. | Let us speculate: the IETA was written first, is independent of the {{isda}} universe, and for reasons best known to IETA’s {{Cds}}, they decided to call this a “Force Majeure”. Being an event beyond the reasonable control of the affected party there is some logic to this. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{icds}} was, as usual, late to the “novel asset class” party and, as it couldn’t find a spot, decided to park its tanks on IETA’s lawn, borrowing much of the technology wholesale but unable to call this event a {{ietaprov|Force Majeure}} because the {{isdama}} ''already has a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}'', this is quite different — for whatever reason, the timings are a lot longer — and that would confuse people even beyond ISDA’s tolerance for confusing people.<ref>Seeing as the {{ietama}} borrows technology from the {{1992ma}} is is conceivable that IETA’s {{cds}} didn’t ''realise'' there was a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{2002ma}}, as there was not one in the {{1992ma}}. I am guessing. </ref> | {{icds}} was, as usual, late to the “novel asset class” party and, as it couldn’t find a spot, decided to park its tanks on IETA’s lawn, borrowing much of the technology wholesale but unable to call this event a {{ietaprov|Force Majeure}} because the {{isdama}} ''already has a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}'', this is quite different — for whatever reason, the timings are a lot longer — and that would confuse people even beyond ISDA’s tolerance for confusing people.<ref>Seeing as the {{ietama}} borrows technology from the {{1992ma}} is is conceivable that IETA’s {{cds}} didn’t ''realise'' there was a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{2002ma}}, as there was not one in the {{1992ma}}. I am guessing. </ref> | ||
So {{icds}} went with its product specific “stuff happens” label, “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}”. | So {{icds}} went with its product specific “stuff happens” label, “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}”. In any case, to make your lives easier, “[[Force Majeure - Emissions Annex Provision]]” redirects to {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}. The JC’s nice like that. | ||
The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else. | The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else. | ||