Disputed Calculations or Valuations - CSA Provision

ISDA 1995 English Law Credit Support Annex →Go uptown In a Nutshell™ Section 4(a): 4(a) Disputed Calculations or Valuations. If a Disputing Party disputes any collateral call (the Value of either the Exposure or the Credit Support being transferred): it must give notice by close of business on the following Local Business Day: it must transfer any undisputed amount by close of business on the following Settlement Day; the parties will try resolve the dispute. If by the Resolution Time they haven’t: Disputes as to Exposure: the Valuation Agent will recalculate any disputed Exposure as of the Recalculation Date by averaging the mid-market quotations from those Reference Market-makers who will provide one (if none will, the Valuation Agent’s original calculations will stand); and calculating the outstanding Credit Support Balance as per Paragraph 11(e)(ii); Disputes as to Credit Support Value: recalculating the Value as of the date of transfer. The Valuation Agent will notify each party by the Notification Time on the Local Business Day following the Resolution Time. Then the appropriate transfer has to be made. view template 1995 CSA full text of Section 4(a): 4(a) Disputed Calculations or Valuations. If a party (a “Disputing Party”) reasonably disputes (I) the Valuation Agent’s calculation of a Delivery Amount or a Return Amount or (II) the Value of any transfer of Eligible Credit Support or Equivalent Credit Support, then: (1) the Disputing Party will notify the other party and the Valuation Agent (if the Valuation Agent is not the other party) not later than the close of business on the Local Business Day following, in the case of (I) above, the date that the demand is received under Paragraph 2 or, in the case of (II) above, the date of transfer; (2) in the case of (I) above, the appropriate party will transfer the undisputed amount to the other party not later than the close of business on the Settlement Day following the date that the demand is received under Paragraph 2; (3) the parties will consult with each other in an attempt to resolve the dispute; and (4) if they fail to resolve the dispute by the Resolution Time, then: (i) in the case of a dispute involving a Delivery Amount or Return Amount, unless otherwise specified in Paragraph 11(c), the Valuation Agent will recalculate the Exposure and the Value as of the Recalculation Date by: (A) utilising any calculations of that part of the Exposure attributable to the Transactions that the parties have agreed are not in dispute; (B) calculating that part of the Exposure attributable to the Transactions in dispute by seeking four actual quotations at mid-market from Reference Market-makers for purposes of calculating Market Quotation, and taking the arithmetic average of those obtained; provided that if four quotations are not available for a particular Transaction, then fewer than four quotations may be used for that Transaction, and if no quotations are available for a particular Transaction, then the Valuation Agent’s original calculations will be used for the Transaction; and (C) utilising the procedures specified in Paragraph 11(e)(ii) for calculating the Value, if disputed, of the outstanding Credit Support Balance; (ii) in the case of a dispute involving the Value of any transfer of Eligible Credit Support or Equivalent Credit Support, the Valuation Agent will recalculate the Value as of the date of transfer pursuant to Paragraph 11(e)(ii). Following a recalculation pursuant to this Paragraph, the Valuation Agent will notify each party (or the other party, if the Valuation Agent is a party) as soon as possible but in any event not later than the Notification Time on the Local Business Day following the Resolution Time. The appropriate party will, upon demand following such notice given by the Valuation Agent or a resolution pursuant to (3) above and subject to Paragraph 3(a), make the appropriate transfer. view template Related Agreements Click here for the text of Section 4(a) in the 1995 English Law CSA Click here for the text of Section 4(a) in the 2016 English Law VM CSA Click [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|here]] for the text of the equivalent, Section [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|{{{3}}}]] in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA Comparisons 1995 CSA and 2016 VM CSA: click for comparison {{nycsadiff {{{3}}}}} Resources Full wikitext | Nutshell wikitext Navigation 1 (Interpretation) | 2 (Credit Support Obligations) | 3 (Transfers, Calculations and Exchanges) | 4 (Dispute Resolution) | 5 (Title Transfer etc) | 6 (Default) | 7 (Representation) | 8 (Expenses) | 9 (Miscellaneous) | 10 (Definitions) | 11 (Elections and Variables) Index: Click ᐅ to expand: 1995 CSA Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The actual wording is in the infobox on the right-hand side, but you may find it easier to read the nutshell summary, since in its 2016 version CSA ISDA not only passed up the opportunity to make this unused-in-practice language simpler, but bloody-mindedly made it worse, by providing anally-retentive alternatives for 2002 ISDA and 1992 ISDA close-out methodologies. Which is just spectacular.

Disputed Calculations or Valuations is a topic that could unfurl like the flower of a deadly insect-eating nightshade if you let it. DON’T LET IT.

What can be disputed?

The dispute can be as to one of two things:

• The Value of posted (or to-be-transferred) Eligible Credit Support; or
• The Transaction Value (when calculating Exposure).

Value of Credit Support

Let's take the easy one first: Eligible Credit Support. If you are a smart sort of fellow who has moved onto a cash-only single-currency 2016 VM CSA then there’s not really much to argue about. What is the Value, in the Base Currency, of an amount in the Base Currency?

Transaction Exposure

The Transaction Exposure has — potentially — a different complexion. While some asset classes (FX, synthetic equity) are pretty observable and, in the same way, there is not much to argue about, others are not. The less liquid a transaction is, the less likely the broker is to refuse any dispute rights when carrying out its Calculation Agent function under the ISDA.

So doesn’t the self-help valuation model under the CSA drive a coach and horses through the carefully constructed Calculation Agent language on which the broker counterparty has just insisted, to the point of threatening to die in a ditch about it?

It may seem so, but in practice no.

• Firstly, the dispute mechanism in the CSA, while fulsome, reflects the uncynical attitude of yesteryear in its aspirations for what third party Reference Market-Makers will be prepared to do to help a fellow market participant out.
• It depends on the better angels of a Reference Market-maker’s nature — neigh, those of four of the blighters — in providing firm quotations to be dissected, arithmetically averaged and arranged for the delight of all. But a moment’s reflection should tell you that Reference Market-makers don’t have a better nature. They are certain not to provide a quote, which brings them no benefit (they can’t get a trade out of it) and saddles them with risk — albeit only the Chicken Licken sort of risk that assiduous attorneys like to busy themselves, namely the fear that one’s well-meaning bad faith or negligence has somehow caused compensable harm to the interests of another market participant.

So all this careful language really boils down to “the party calling for collateral decides” which seems wildly one-sided until you realize that a trading relationship is — well — a relationship, and absent a material risk of outright failure (in which case, the value of mark-to- market exposures are a problem only when your counterpart has failed to honour them), the lure of a continued trading relationship, professional courtesy, and being a good egg are the practical mitigants against unconsiounable behaviour.

Of course, none of these mitigants gives much scope for legal intercession, so a good lawyer tends to cast aspersions on them. [to be continued]