Template:Isda 1 general: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "===Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}}: the {{{{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}=== Most of Section {{{{{1}}}|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} is important —..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Template:Isda 1 details to Template:Isda 1 general |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Most of Section {{{{{1}}}|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} is important — by some lights, the main reason one even ''has'' an {{isdama}}: it vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis, purporting to inextricably bind together all {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. This, at any rate, has been the dominant fear of the [[Basel Committee on Bank Supervision]] since it hit upon the idea of capital relief for [[Master netting agreement|master netting agreements]] in 1986. | Most of Section {{{{{1}}}|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} is important — by some lights, the main reason one even ''has'' an {{isdama}}: it vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis, purporting to inextricably bind together all {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. This, at any rate, has been the dominant fear of the [[Basel Committee on Bank Supervision]] since it hit upon the idea of capital relief for [[Master netting agreement|master netting agreements]] in 1986. | ||
“Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that [[out-of-the-money]] [[exposure]]<ref>Yes I know: Section | “Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that [[out-of-the-money]] [[exposure]]<ref>Yes I know: Section 2(a)(iii). We’ll get to that. And in some jurisdictions mandatory [[insolvency set-off]] would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.</ref> and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.” | ||
You might be inclined to say, “but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!” | You might be inclined to say, “but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!” | ||
Well, Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} — the one that says “it ''is'' all a single agreement, and we would never have done ''any'' of this if we had thought for a moment it might not be, and to prove it we are saying this out loud at the very inception of our derivatives relationship” is your friend in making that argument. There are similar provisions in other agreements, but none is so classic or elegant as the {{isdama}}’s. | Well, Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} — the one that says “it ''is'' all a single agreement, and we would never have done ''any'' of this if we had thought for a moment it might not be, and to prove it we are saying this out loud at the very inception of our derivatives relationship” is your friend in making that argument. There are similar provisions in other agreements, but none is so classic or elegant as the {{isdama}}’s. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 13 April 2020
Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}}: the {{{{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}
Most of Section {{{{{1}}}|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} is important — by some lights, the main reason one even has an ISDA Master Agreement: it vouchsafes your close-out netting analysis, purporting to inextricably bind together all {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s under the ISDA Master Agreement as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. This, at any rate, has been the dominant fear of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision since it hit upon the idea of capital relief for master netting agreements in 1986.
“Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure[1] and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”
You might be inclined to say, “but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!”
Well, Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} — the one that says “it is all a single agreement, and we would never have done any of this if we had thought for a moment it might not be, and to prove it we are saying this out loud at the very inception of our derivatives relationship” is your friend in making that argument. There are similar provisions in other agreements, but none is so classic or elegant as the ISDA Master Agreement’s.
- ↑ Yes I know: Section 2(a)(iii). We’ll get to that. And in some jurisdictions mandatory insolvency set-off would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.