Template:Isda Applicable Close-out Rate summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Truly from the {{isia}} file — almost in the shoot me file. This whole game of pan-dimensional chess, with ''six'' different {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}}s to apply in different circumstances, is all just to work out how to accrue interest on {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s and {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}s during the close-out process. Considering that the said payer of this {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}} is, Q.E.D., a dead duck at the ti..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Truly from the {{isia}} file — almost in the [[shoot me]] file. This whole game of pan-dimensional chess, with ''six'' different {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}}s to apply in different circumstances, is all just to work out how to accrue interest on {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s and {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}s during the close-out process. Considering that the said payer of this {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}} is, [[Q.E.D.]], a dead duck at the time, and is unlikely to be able to pay much of anything, let alone elevated penalty interest, it really should not have been this hard. | Truly from the {{isia}} file — almost in the [[shoot me]] file. This whole game of pan-dimensional chess, with ''six'' different {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}}s to apply in different circumstances, is all just to work out how to accrue interest on {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s and {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}s during the close-out process. Considering that the said payer of this {{isdaprov|Applicable Close-out Rate}} is, [[Q.E.D.]], a dead duck at the time, and is unlikely to be able to pay much of anything, let alone elevated penalty interest, it really should not have been this hard. | ||
You get a strong sense that the pragmatists of {{icds}} — if there are any — had well and truly tuned out and gone to the bar by [[the ’squad]] got to this definition. Looking on the bright side, ''at least it doesn’t mention [[LIBOR]]''. | You get a strong sense that the pragmatists of {{icds}} — if there are any — had well and truly tuned out and gone to the bar by [[the ’squad]] got to this definition. Looking on the bright side, ''at least it doesn’t mention [[LIBOR]]''. | ||
====''Non''-Default Rate==== | |||
To compare with the definition of “{{isdaprov|Default Rate}}”: | |||
{{quote|“'''{{isdaprov|Default Rate}}'''” means a rate per annum equal to the cost (without proof or evidence of any actual cost) to the relevant payee (as certified by it) if it were to fund or of funding the relevant amount '''''plus 1% per annum'''''. ''[emphasis added]''}} | |||
Since there is no suggestion of deftly placing one’s thumb on the scale, as there is for the Default Rate, we need not have, here, a saucy discussion about the risks of being seen as a [[Penalty clause|penalty]]. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 13 September 2024
Truly from the I’m sorry I asked file — almost in the shoot me file. This whole game of pan-dimensional chess, with six different Applicable Close-out Rates to apply in different circumstances, is all just to work out how to accrue interest on Unpaid Amounts and Early Termination Amounts during the close-out process. Considering that the said payer of this Applicable Close-out Rate is, Q.E.D., a dead duck at the time, and is unlikely to be able to pay much of anything, let alone elevated penalty interest, it really should not have been this hard.
You get a strong sense that the pragmatists of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ — if there are any — had well and truly tuned out and gone to the bar by the ’squad got to this definition. Looking on the bright side, at least it doesn’t mention LIBOR.
Non-Default Rate
To compare with the definition of “Default Rate”:
“Default Rate” means a rate per annum equal to the cost (without proof or evidence of any actual cost) to the relevant payee (as certified by it) if it were to fund or of funding the relevant amount plus 1% per annum. [emphasis added]
Since there is no suggestion of deftly placing one’s thumb on the scale, as there is for the Default Rate, we need not have, here, a saucy discussion about the risks of being seen as a penalty.