1987 ISDA Interest Rate and Currency Exchange Agreement: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|isda|{{image|Musket|jpg|An unloaded {{1987ma}}}}}}Well-and-truly out-of-date version of the {{isdama}}, replaced first by the {{1992isda}} and then the {{2002isda}}, the {{1987isda}} is nonetheless useful for forensic archaeologists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> | ||
Well and truly out of date version of the {{isdama}}. | |||
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. | |||
the | |||
Many of the lending-derived credit concepts in the {{isdama}} are practically redundant, but they hang on — artefacts 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. | |||
there | 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}}==== | ||
{{1987 v 1992 comparison summary|isda92prov}} | |||
There are others. | |||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*{{1992ma}} | |||
*{{2002ma}} | |||
*[[1985 ISDA Code of Standard Wording, Assumptions and Provisions for Swaps]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 12:54, 5 September 2024
Well-and-truly out-of-date version of the ISDA Master Agreement, replaced first by the 1992 ISDA and then the 2002 ISDA, the 1987 ISDA is nonetheless useful for forensic archaeologists interested to know how the state-of-the-art version got to be how it is today.[1]
And it is quite the yarn: you don’t get as shot-up and crazed as an ISDA Master Agreement without some scrapes and shootouts along the way.
Nineteen eighty-seven was a different world; the very first swap transaction[2] 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 ISDA Master Agreement is not, of course, any kind of banking facility: certainly not if it is 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 ISDA Master Agreement are practically redundant, but they hang on — artefacts of the great dogma of precedent.[3] 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 6(a) — then there’s a fair chance the market developments of the last 32 years might have rendered it pointless.
Differences between 1987 ISDA and 1992 ISDA
The 1992 ISDA was introduced principally, to:
- Expand range of products covered: Expand beyond interest rate and currency swaps.
- Netting: Enhance and strengthen close-out netting.
- Market developments: Reflect market developments — the period between 1987 and 1992 was a massive growth in the swaps market, and lessons were learned.
- Physical delivery: Allow for physical delivery of underlying instruments referenced in a swap (the only “underlying” for rates and fx is cash, so the 1987 ISDA only needed to contemplate the payment of cash).
- Settlement Amounts: Introduce greater flexibility for determining Settlement Amounts on termination of Transactions (introducing the Loss, Market Quotation, First Method and Second Method regimes thereafter replaced in the 2002 ISDA by Close-out Amount).
- Two-way payments on termination: Under the 1987 ISDA a Defaulting Party is not entitled to termination payments. This is the so-called “limited two-way payments” provision which was a large part of the reason 1987 ISDAs were not reliable on netting.
- Settlement netting: more flexibility for netting groups of transactions under Section 2 - under the 1987 ISDA you could either net just within a single Transaction or across all Transactions but not, as standard, across a given subset of Transactions.
There are others.