Template:M summ 1992 ISDA Force Majeure Event: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Force majeure]] in the {{1992ma}}=== | ===[[Force majeure]] in the {{1992ma}}=== | ||
There is no equivalent to the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{1992ma}}. You could, and many old-timers do, write an {{isda92prov|Impossibility}} clause was into the {{isda92prov|Schedule}}, which endeavoured to do the same thing. One can incorporate {{ | There is no equivalent to the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{1992ma}}. You could, and many old-timers do, write an {{isda92prov|Impossibility}} clause was into the {{isda92prov|Schedule}}, which endeavoured to do the same thing. One can incorporate the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} into the {{1992ma}} as long as you carry the concept through to its logical conclusion i.e.: | ||
*Include a {{ | *Include a “{{isdaprov|Hierachy of Events}}” to be clear what happens where the same event is both a {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} ''and'' a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}}; | ||
*Consider the impact | *Consider the impact of a deferral on the {{isda92prov|Early Termination Amount}} etc. | ||
The concept also impacts the basis of [[close-out]] because the {{2002ma}} requires true [[mid]]s for valuation i.e, not simply the average of each party’s view of the [[Bid-offer spread|bid/offer]] where a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}} (or {{isda92prov|Illegality}}) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the {{1992ma}} with a “Two {{isda92prov|Affected Parties}}” option. | The concept also impacts the basis of [[close-out]] because the {{2002ma}} requires true [[mid]]s for valuation i.e, not simply the average of each party’s view of the [[Bid-offer spread|bid/offer]] where a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}} (or {{isda92prov|Illegality}}) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the {{1992ma}} with a “Two {{isda92prov|Affected Parties}}” option. | ||
Revision as of 16:55, 18 March 2020
Force majeure in the 1992 ISDA
There is no equivalent to the 2002 ISDA’s Force Majeure Event in the 1992 ISDA. You could, and many old-timers do, write an Impossibility clause was into the Schedule, which endeavoured to do the same thing. One can incorporate the 2002 ISDA’s Force Majeure Event into the 1992 ISDA as long as you carry the concept through to its logical conclusion i.e.:
- Include a “Hierachy of Events” to be clear what happens where the same event is both a Event of Default and a Force Majeure Event;
- Consider the impact of a deferral on the Early Termination Amount etc.
The concept also impacts the basis of close-out because the 2002 ISDA requires true mids for valuation i.e, not simply the average of each party’s view of the bid/offer where a Force Majeure Event (or Illegality) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the 1992 ISDA with a “Two Affected Parties” option.