Template:Isda 6(e) comp: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Compare with {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} under the {{2002ma}}''
{{isdacomparisons|90094|90095|90096}}
The {{1987ma}} was half-cocked and shambolic, and laboured under the wishful illusion that if the other guy blew up, even if he was in the money, it was kind of okay to just flip him the bird and walk off with a windfall (in the form of not owing him the money you like, actually owed him). Not cool these days. Once folks realised this wouldn’t fly from a [[netting]] perspective they tried to fix it in the {{1992ma}}, whose [[close-out]] methodology is truly hideous.


[[6(e)(i) - 1992 ISDA provision|The]] {{1992ma}} [[close-out]] methodology is hideous. They overhauled whole process of closing out an ISDA, soup to nuts, in the {{2002ma}}, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about {{icds}}’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the {{1992ma}}. Odd.
{{icds}} overhauled whole close-out process, soup to nuts, in the {{2002ma}}, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about {{icds}}’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the {{1992ma}}. Odd.
 
Differences, in very brief:
 
The {{1992ma}} has the infamous {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} and {{isda92prov|Loss}} measures of value, and the perennially-ignored {{isda92prov|First Method}} and the more sensible {{isda92prov|Second Method}} means of evaluating the termination value of terminated {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}. The {{2002ma}} has just the {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} to cover everything. So while the {{1992ma}} is far more elaborate and over-engineered, this is not to deny that the {{2002ma}} is elaborate or over-engineeered.
 
The {{2002ma}} has a new Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(iv)}} dealing with {{isdaprov|Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event}}. This wasn’t needed in the {{1992ma}}, which didn’t have {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} at all, and a less sophisticated {{isda92prov|Illegality}}.

Latest revision as of 14:40, 6 September 2024

Redlines

Discussion

The 1987 ISDA was half-cocked and shambolic, and laboured under the wishful illusion that if the other guy blew up, even if he was in the money, it was kind of okay to just flip him the bird and walk off with a windfall (in the form of not owing him the money you like, actually owed him). Not cool these days. Once folks realised this wouldn’t fly from a netting perspective they tried to fix it in the 1992 ISDA, whose close-out methodology is truly hideous.

ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ overhauled whole close-out process, soup to nuts, in the 2002 ISDA, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the 1992 ISDA. Odd.

Differences, in very brief:

The 1992 ISDA has the infamous Market Quotation and Loss measures of value, and the perennially-ignored First Method and the more sensible Second Method means of evaluating the termination value of terminated {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}. The 2002 ISDA has just the Close-out Amount to cover everything. So while the 1992 ISDA is far more elaborate and over-engineered, this is not to deny that the 2002 ISDA is elaborate or over-engineeered.

The 2002 ISDA has a new Section 6(e)(iv) dealing with Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event. This wasn’t needed in the 1992 ISDA, which didn’t have Force Majeure Event at all, and a less sophisticated Illegality.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Isda_6(e)_comp&oldid=90120"