Template:Single agreement capsule: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "====The “single agreement” concept==== Here several pieces of magic come together to create the capital foundation of the modern master trading agreement. The challenge, originally solved by the First Men, was to create an architecture that allowed discrete, unitary, complete {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s, such that creating a new one or terminating an old one didn’t upset the economic or legal integrity of other {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s that were currently on..."
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
====The “[[single agreement]]” concept====
=====The “[[single agreement]]” concept=====
Here several pieces of magic come together to create the capital foundation of the modern master trading agreement. The challenge, originally solved by the [[First Men]], was to create an architecture that allowed discrete, unitary, complete {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s, such that creating a new one or terminating an old one didn’t upset the economic or legal integrity of other {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s that were currently on foot, while at the same time creating an umbrella framework so that, should something regrettable happen to either party, all {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s can be quickly rounded up, evaluated, stopped and then collapsed down — “netted” — to a single amount, payable by one party to the other.
Here several pieces of magic come together to create the capital foundation of the modern master trading agreement. The challenge, originally solved by the [[First Men]], was to create an architecture that allowed discrete, unitary, complete {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s, such that creating a new one or terminating an old one didn’t upset the economic or legal integrity of other {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s that were currently on foot — no untoward ''tax'' consequences, that is to say — while at the same time creating an umbrella framework so that, should something regrettable happen to either party, all {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s can be quickly rounded up, evaluated, stopped and then collapsed down — “netted” — to a single payment, payable by one party to the other.


This involved some canny financial engineering. The general rules of [[set-off]] require not just a mutuality of parties to the off-setting debts, but also amounts falling due on the same day and in the same currency — neither of which was necessarily true of the independent {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s executed under an multi-currency, cross-border {{isdama}}.
This involved some canny financial engineering. The general rules of [[set-off]] require not just a mutuality of ''parties'' to the off-setting debts, but also amounts falling due on the same day and in the same currency — neither of which was necessarily true of the independent {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s executed under a multi-currency, cross-border {{isdama}}.


The answer was this concept of the “{{ {{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}”: the over-arching agreement that, however independent and self-contained {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s are for any other purpose, when it comes to their early termination they transmogrify themselves into the single host agreement, and are reduced to calculation inputs to the final amount which one party must pay the other. Thereby the process is not one of “[[set-off]]” at all, but of calculating a single net amount, payment of which would sort out all matters outstanding under the relationship.
Their solution was this concept of the “{{ {{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}”: the over-arching agreement that, however independent and self-contained {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s are for any other purpose, when it comes to their early termination, they transmogrify into the single host agreement, in the process reduced to mere calculation inputs to the final amount which one party must pay the other. Thereby the process is not one of “[[set-off]]” at all, but of calculating a single net amount, the payment of which would sort out all matters outstanding under the relationship.
 
The JC once had the idea of doing a “boring talk” about the history of the ISDA Master, and actually pitched it to the BBC for their podcast series. It was rejected, on account of being ''too boring''. True story.

Latest revision as of 11:09, 23 December 2023

The “single agreement” concept

Here several pieces of magic come together to create the capital foundation of the modern master trading agreement. The challenge, originally solved by the First Men, was to create an architecture that allowed discrete, unitary, complete {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s, such that creating a new one or terminating an old one didn’t upset the economic or legal integrity of other {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s that were currently on foot — no untoward tax consequences, that is to say — while at the same time creating an umbrella framework so that, should something regrettable happen to either party, all {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s can be quickly rounded up, evaluated, stopped and then collapsed down — “netted” — to a single payment, payable by one party to the other.

This involved some canny financial engineering. The general rules of set-off require not just a mutuality of parties to the off-setting debts, but also amounts falling due on the same day and in the same currency — neither of which was necessarily true of the independent {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s executed under a multi-currency, cross-border ISDA Master Agreement.

Their solution was this concept of the “{{ {{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}”: the over-arching agreement that, however independent and self-contained {{ {{{1}}}|Transaction}}s are for any other purpose, when it comes to their early termination, they transmogrify into the single host agreement, in the process reduced to mere calculation inputs to the final amount which one party must pay the other. Thereby the process is not one of “set-off” at all, but of calculating a single net amount, the payment of which would sort out all matters outstanding under the relationship.

The JC once had the idea of doing a “boring talk” about the history of the ISDA Master, and actually pitched it to the BBC for their podcast series. It was rejected, on account of being too boring. True story.