|
|
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|6(d)}}'''Comparison''': Here is a {{Diff|35638|35639}} between the 1992 and 2002 versions. | | {{nman|isda|2002|6(d)}} |
| A popular parlour game amongst those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up the chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision to the {{2002ma}} standard.
| |
| | |
| You might well ask why, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''. Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, downgrade the new version, wouldn't you? But no).
| |
| | |
| This clause has nothing to do with [[grace period]]s and everything to do with {{isdaprov|Loss}} and {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} ({{1992ma}}) or {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s ({{2002ma}}) so expect to see it modified. Wiki DV set out below.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| <small>'''Previous''': {{isdaprov|6(a)}} | {{isdaprov|6(b)}} | {{isdaprov|6(c)}} '''Next''': {{isdaprov|6(e)}} </small>
| |
| {{ref}}
| |
Latest revision as of 16:55, 14 August 2024
2002 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™
6(d) 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.
|
Original text
6(d) Calculations; Payment Date.
- (i) Statement. On or as soon as reasonably practicable following the occurrence of an Early Termination Date, each party will make the calculations on its part, if any, contemplated by Section 6(e) and will provide to the other party a statement
- (1) showing, in reasonable detail, such calculations (including any quotations, market data or information from internal sources used in making such calculations),
- (2) specifying (except where there are two Affected Parties) any Early Termination Amount payable and
- (3) giving details of the relevant account to which any amount payable to it is to be paid.
- In the absence of written confirmation from the source of a quotation or market data obtained in determining a Close-out Amount, the records of the party obtaining such quotation or market data will be conclusive evidence of the existence and accuracy of such quotation or market data.
- (ii) Payment Date. An Early Termination Amount due in respect of any Early Termination Date will, together with any amount of interest payable pursuant to Section 9(h)(ii)(2), be payable
- (1) on the day on which notice of the amount payable is effective in the case of an Early Termination Date which is designated or occurs as a result of an Event of Default and
- (2) on the day which is two Local Business Days after the day on which notice of the amount payable is effective (or, if there are two Affected Parties, after the day on which the statement provided pursuant to clause (i) above by the second party to provide such a statement is effective) in the case of an Early Termination Date which is designated as a result of a Termination Event.
|
Resources and Navigation
Index: Click ᐅ to expand:
|
|
Comparisons
Broadly similar between the versions. Main differences are basic architectural ones (no definition of “Early Termination Amount” or “Close-out Amount” in the 1992 ISDA, for example), and the 2002 is a little more finicky, dealing with what to do if there are two Affected Parties, and also blithering on for a few lines about interest.
Basics
Section 6(d) is to do with working out the termination value of Transactions for which you’ve just designated an Early Termination Date (or, in the 1992 ISDA, the thing you wished they’d defined as an Early Termination Date).
Under the ’92 one uses Loss and Market Quotation, and all that Second Method malarkey, and in the 2002 ISDA the much neater and tidier Close-out Amount concept.
Generally, this is good fat-tail paranoia material, so once upon a time parties used to negotiate it heavily. General SME-drain from the negotiation talent pool over the years due to vigorous down-skilling means people are less fussed about it now.
A popular parlour game among those pedants who still insist on using the 1992 ISDA — or, in fairness, are forced to by some other pedant further up their chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry — is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the 1992 ISDA to the 2002 ISDA standard except the one provision of the 1992 ISDA they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the Treasury department, that will be the longer grace period in the Failure to Pay; if she is from Credit, it absolutely won’t be.
You might well ask why anyone would be so bloody-minded, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the Fast and Furious franchise. Because they can.
Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous grace periods for Failure to Pay (three days in the 1992 ISDA versus one in the 2002 ISDA) and Bankruptcy (thirty days in the 1992 ISDA versus 15 in the 2002 ISDA) in which case, you’d retrofit longer grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no).
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👇
- JC’s “nutshell” summary of the clause
- Background reading and long-form essays
-
- The chicken-and-egg scenario with designating dates in the future and then ascertaining termination values
|
See also
References