Template:Isda 6(e)(i) summ isda92prov: Difference between revisions

Template:Isda 6(e)(i) summ isda92prov (view source)

Revision as of 19:22, 24 January 2024

419 bytes added , 24 January

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Upon a Termination Event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{{{{1}}}|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{{{{1}}}|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.
+One thing to say: this is one place where the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} vary a great deal. The 2002 Master Agreement dramatically simplifies and, after 20 odd years of curmudgeonly refusal to accept this, even the Americans now seem to acknowledge, ''improves'' the process of closing out an ISDA.
-==={{{{{1}}}|First Method}}===
-Fun fact: That terrible [[FT book about derivatives]], and other like-minded sources, label the {{isdaprov|First Method}} a “[[limited two-way payments]]” clause, by which lights Long John Silver was a “limited two-legged pirate”. Less disingenuously also known as a “[[walkaway clause]]”, the {{isdaprov|First Method}}, which ensured that on [[close-out]] a {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} got paid nothing, regardless of how far [[in-the-money]] its {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s were, was rarely used, even in the heady early 1990s, when derivatives seemed fun, new and mostly harmless.
-Under the {{isdaprov|First Method}}, a payment is only ever made if the {{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}} is payable by the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} to the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}. This is, needless to say, a big fat free option against a {{gmslaprov|Defaulting Party}}. The {{isdaprov|First Method}} is thus a back door to withhold payments that otherwise would due under the {{isdama}}, it is hard to see why anyone in their right mind would give away this kind of optionality at the commencement of a derivative trading relationship, and, predictably, no one did.
+''Anyway''. You chose the 1992, so here we are. (Changed your mind? go [[6(e)(i) - ISDA Provision|''here'']]).
-Very, very rarely seen. <br>
+Upon a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{{{{1}}}|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{{{{1}}}|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.
-==={{{{{1}}}|Second Method}}===
+===={{{{{1}}}|First Method}}====
+Fun fact: That terrible [[FT book about derivatives]], and other like-minded sources, label the {{{{{1}}}|First Method}} a “[[limited two-way payments]]” clause, by which lights Long John Silver was a “limited two-legged pirate”. Less disingenuously also known as a “[[walkaway clause]]”, the {{{{{1}}}|First Method}}, which ensured that on [[close-out]] a {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} got paid nothing, regardless of how far [[in-the-money]] its {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s were, was rarely used, even in the heady early 1990s, when derivatives seemed fun, new and mostly harmless.
+Under the {{{{{1}}}|First Method}}, a payment is only ever made if the {{{{{1}}}|Settlement Amount}} is payable by the {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} to the {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting Party}}. This is, needless to say, a big fat free option against a {{gmslaprov|Defaulting Party}}. The {{{{{1}}}|First Method}} is thus a back door to withhold payments that otherwise would due under the {{isdama}}, it is hard to see why anyone in their right mind would give away this kind of optionality at the commencement of a derivative trading relationship, and, predictably, no one did.
+Very, very rarely seen.
+===={{{{{1}}}|Second Method}}====
 The '''{{{{{1}}}|Second Method}}''' is a method of determining the {{{{{1}}}|Early Termination Amount}} due upon close out of an {{1992ma}}. Unlike the {{{{{1}}}|First Method}}, it requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the {{{{{1}}}|Terminated Transactions}} to whom it is due, regardless whether it is the {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} or the {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting party}}. I.e., the Defaulting Party might get paid. Nice, huh?
-===Transaction Valuation===
+====Transaction Valuation====
 The {{1992ma}} provides alternative ways of arriving at a value for your portfolio of {{{{{1}}}|Terminated Transactions}}. This probably seemed like a good idea to {{icds}} at the time — hey look: [[acid wash denim]] seemed a good idea at the time, to ''someone'' — but it leads to complexity, confusion, fear and loathing.
 *'''{{{{{1}}}|Market Quotation}}''' requires at least three arm’s length quotations to value the {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}} to be terminated. Since the {{{{{1}}}|Reference Market-makers}} won’t know anything about the state of your {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s — and you are hardly likely to tell them — they can hardly be expected to factor your specific {{{{{1}}}|Unpaid Amounts}} into their quotations, so their quotations, if they even give you one,<ref>They won’t.</ref> will be to replace the remainder of the Transaction ''in the abstract'', assuming all past payments have been made, and there are no {{{{{1}}}|Unpaid Amounts}}. Therefore, later on in your close-out calculation process, you will have to factor in those {{{{{1}}}|Unpaid Amounts}} yourself.
 *'''{{{{{1}}}|Loss}}''' allows the {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting Party}} to figure out (in "[[good faith]]") its losses and costs (minus its gains) replacing {{{{{1}}}|Terminated Transactions}}. While the NDP ''can'' to this by reference to dealer quotations, it doesn’t have to. Seeing as, unlike a {{{{{1}}}|Reference Market-maker}}, the {{{{{1}}}|NDP}} itself absolutely ''does'' know what the {{{{{1}}}|Unpaid Amounts}} are, {{icds}} thought it easier for the {{{{{1}}}|Loss}} calculation method to factor the {{{{{1}}}|Unpaid Amounts}} in right away, rather than doing that as a separate second step, as per {{{{{1}}}|Market Quotation}}. But this really just confuses things, when it could have all been simple.<ref>The {{2002ma}} and its {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} recognises that.</ref>