83,547
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(23 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well and truly out of date version of the {{isdama}}. | {{a|isda|{{image|Musket|jpg|An unloaded {{1987ma}}}}}}Well-and-truly out-of-date version of the {{isdama}}, replaced first by the {{1992isda}} and then the {{2002isda}}, the {{1987isda}} is nonetheless useful for forensic archaeologists interested to know how the state-of-the-art version got to be how it is today.<ref>There are the odd [[Fossil record|fossils]] who still insist on using it, though most of those have long-since been taken out and shot, a process now happening to disciples of the {{1992ma}}.</ref> | ||
And it is quite the yarn: you don’t get as shot-up and crazed as an {{isdama}} without some scrapes and shootouts along the way. | |||
Nineteen eighty-seven was a different world; the very first swap transaction<ref>Between IBM and the World Bank — see [[swap history]] for more.</ref> was only consummated six years previously. The swap master agreement was a nascent idea to streamline the documentation between counterparties, and to capture this nascent idea of [[close-out netting]], but was predicated on the legal precepts of banking facilities. An {{isdama}} is not, of course, any kind of banking facility: certainly not if it is [[Variation margin|daily-margined]], as is now required by regulation for most of the 600 trillion of swaps transacted annually. | |||
=== | Many of the lending-derived credit concepts in the {{isdama}} are practically redundant, but they hang on — artifacts of the great [[doctrine of precedent|dogma of precedent]].<ref>Did I say “dogma”? I meant doctrine!</ref> If it is in the agreement, it must be there for a reason, and if I cannot conceive of one that must be down to my own mental frailty, rather than the caution or basic fussiness of our forefathers and foremothers. | ||
So if you find something odd, check the [[fossil record]] to see if it has been there from the outset. If it has — for example, the 20-day limit on close out notices under Section {{isda87prov|6(a)}} — then there’s a fair chance the market developments of the last 32 years might have rendered it pointless. | |||
===Differences between {{1987isda}} and {{1992isda}}=== | |||
The {{1992ma}} was introduced principally, to: | |||
*'''Expand range of products covered''': Expand beyond [[interest rate derivatives]] and [[currency derivatives]] and promote the benefit of [[close-out netting]] | *'''Expand range of products covered''': Expand beyond [[interest rate derivatives]] and [[currency derivatives]] and promote the benefit of [[close-out netting]] | ||
*'''Market Developments''': Reflect legal developments between 1987 and 1992. | *'''Market Developments''': Reflect legal developments between 1987 and 1992. | ||
*'''[[Physical delivery]]''': Permit [[physical delivery]] | |||
*'''{{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}}s''': Introduce greater flexibility for determining {{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}}s on termination of {{isdaprov|Transactions}} (introducing the {{isdaprov|Loss}}, {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, {{isdaprov|First Method}} and {{isdaprov|Second Method}} regimes thereafter replaced in the {{2002ma}} by {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}). | |||
*'''Two-way payments on termination''': Under the {{1987ma}} a party may not receive termination payments (this is the "limited two-way payment" provision). | |||
*'''Settlement netting''': more flexibility for netting groups of transactions under Section {{isda87prov|2}} - under the {{1987isda}} you could either [[net]] just within single transactions or across all {{isda87prov|Transactions}}. | |||
There are some others. | |||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*{{1992ma}} | |||
*{{2002ma}} | |||
*[[1985 ISDA Code of Standard Wording, Assumptions and Provisions for Swaps]] | |||
{{ref}} |