Template:Record amount paid amount ex amount: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Nor does the [[User’s Guide to the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions|ISDA equity derivative user’s guide]]. It suggests, without saying in which cases, that you might need a [[clawback]] right if you don’t want to be on the hook for a {{eqderivprov|Dividend Amount}} declared but not eventually paid by the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}}. But consider this: in what universe would the writer of a derivative referencing an Share, wish to be liable for a dividend declared on but not ultimately paid by the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}}? That would be to do something [[equity derivative]]s are expressly designed not to do. | Nor does the [[User’s Guide to the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions|ISDA equity derivative user’s guide]]. It suggests, without saying in which cases, that you might need a [[clawback]] right if you don’t want to be on the hook for a {{eqderivprov|Dividend Amount}} declared but not eventually paid by the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}}. But consider this: in what universe would the writer of a derivative referencing an Share, wish to be liable for a dividend declared on but not ultimately paid by the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}}? That would be to do something [[equity derivative]]s are expressly designed not to do. | ||
===House view: S.N.A.F.U.=== | |||
The [[JC]] concludes this is simply a howler in the {{eqdefs}} which ISDA hastily tried to cover up with that clawback malarkey. In any case, to be safe, reference the {{eqderivprov|Paid Amount}}. Consensus amongst market professionals we have consulted is that {{eqderivprov|Paid Amount}} does, as its drafting suggests, depend on the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}} ponying up. That is where you want to be. | The [[JC]] concludes this is simply a howler in the {{eqdefs}} which ISDA hastily tried to cover up with that clawback malarkey. In any case, to be safe, reference the {{eqderivprov|Paid Amount}}. Consensus amongst market professionals we have consulted is that {{eqderivprov|Paid Amount}} does, as its drafting suggests, depend on the {{eqderivprov|Issuer}} ponying up. That is where you want to be. <br> | ||
Revision as of 17:01, 12 November 2019
Careful: it’s (meant to be) about timing, not amount
So what is the difference betwixt a Record Amount, Paid Amount and Ex Amount? To be clear, it is not about whether you get paid, nor how much, but when. A Dividend Amount is a Dividend Amount: in each case “100%[1] of the gross cash dividend per Share”, end of the day. What this is all to do with is when a Dividend Amount is deemed to occur, which in turn is a function of which Dividend Period the trigger for the dividend falls in.
- The trigger where Record Amount applies is the record date for the dividend in question. You should pay the gross cash dividend on the Cash Settlement Payment Date for that Dividend Period in which the record date falls.
- The trigger where Ex Amount applies is the ex date for the dividend in question. You should pay the gross cash dividend on the Cash Settlement Payment Date for that Dividend Period in which the ex date falls.
- The trigger where Paid Amount applies is the payment date for the dividend in question. You should pay the gross cash dividend on the Cash Settlement Payment Date for that Dividend Period in which the dividend is paid.
“Paid”? Is that, like, different to “declared”? On purpose?
Is Paid Amount meant to be different from Record Amount or Ex Amount, in referencing not what is declared, but what the Issuer actually physically, real-world, paid out?
On one hand, on a natural reading it seems so: Record Amount and Ex Amount specify an amount by reference to the amount “declared by the Issuer to holders of record of a Share”, whereas Paid Amount references the amount “paid by the Issuer during the relevant Dividend Period to holders of record”. On the other hand there’s no sensible reason for supposing am Equity Amount Payer would want to keep the risk of solvency of an Issuer if it pays early[2] but not have it if it pays on the payment date. Examination of the world wide web seems to offer little help.
Nor does the ISDA equity derivative user’s guide. It suggests, without saying in which cases, that you might need a clawback right if you don’t want to be on the hook for a Dividend Amount declared but not eventually paid by the Issuer. But consider this: in what universe would the writer of a derivative referencing an Share, wish to be liable for a dividend declared on but not ultimately paid by the Issuer? That would be to do something equity derivatives are expressly designed not to do.
House view: S.N.A.F.U.
The JC concludes this is simply a howler in the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions which ISDA hastily tried to cover up with that clawback malarkey. In any case, to be safe, reference the Paid Amount. Consensus amongst market professionals we have consulted is that Paid Amount does, as its drafting suggests, depend on the Issuer ponying up. That is where you want to be.