Termination Currency Equivalent - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "{{manual|MI|2002|Termination Currency Equivalent|Definition of|Termination Currency Equivalent|medium}}" Tag: Replaced |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isdamanual|Termination Currency Equivalent}} |
Latest revision as of 09:38, 28 June 2023
2002 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™
Termination Currency Equivalent in all its glory
Related agreements and comparisons
Resources and Navigation
|
Overview
But for the edition-appropriate references to “Loss and Market Quotation (as the case may be)” for the 1992 ISDA, and Close-out Amount (for the 2002 ISDA, these definitions are identical.
Summary
A fabulous example of the English language getting the better of a committee of its own seasoned professional users, ISDA’s remarkable “Termination Currency Equivalent” definition erodes the fabric in which the basic assumptions of people who share a common language are woven.
It convolutes, to the point of incomprehensibility, an idea well enough described by its own name. Who would labour under a serious doubt about this expression:
- “one party must pay the other the amount in its termination currency equivalent”?
Failing that, how about this:
- “one party must pay the other an equivalent amount in the termination currency”?
The idea of an amount in one currency of an amount expressed in another really oughtn’t to be that hard to master, but to see how hard someone with profound ontological uncertainty can make it, have a gander at this ==>
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 👇
|
- The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause
- The Encyclopaedia Galactica’s entry on “Termination Currency Equivalent”