Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(c): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Replaced content with "{{isda 2(a) summ|isdaprov}}"
Tag: Replaced
Line 1: Line 1:
Our [[Jolly contrarian|chief contrarian]] wonders what on earth the point of this section is, since [[settlement netting]] is a factual operational process for performing existing legal obligations, rather than any kind of variation of the parties’ rights and obligations. If you owe me ten pounds and I owe you ten pounds, and we agree to both keep our tenners, what cause of action arises? What loss is there? We have settled our existing obligations in different way.
{{isda 2(a) summ|isdaprov}}
 
To be sure, if I pay you your tenner and you ''don’t'' pay me mine, that’s a different story — but then there is no [[settlement netting]] at all. The only time one would wish to enforce [[settlement netting]] it must, ipso facto, have actually happened, so what do you think you’re going to court to enforce?

Revision as of 09:42, 24 December 2023

Section 2 contains the basic nuts and bolts of your obligations under the Transactions you execute. Pay or deliver what you’ve promised to pay or deliver, when you’ve promised to pay it or deliver it, and all will be well.

“Scheduled Settlement Date”

Though it doesn’t say so, at least in the 2002 ISDA the date on which you are obliged to pay or deliver an amount is the “Scheduled Settlement Date”. The ’02 definition only shows up only in Section 2(b) (relating to the time by which you must have notified any change of account details) and then, later, in the tax-related Termination Events (Tax Event and Tax Event Upon Merger). That said, “Scheduled Settlement Date” isn’t defined at all in the 1992 ISDA.

Section 2(a)(iii): the flawed asset provision

And then there’s the mighty flawed asset provision of Section 2(a)(iii). This won’t trouble ISDA negotiators on the way into a swap trading relationship — few enough people understand it sufficiently well to argue about it — but if, as it surely will, the great day of judgment should visit upon the financial markets again some time in the future, expect plenty of tasty argument, between highly-paid King’s Counsel who have spent exactly none of their careers considering derivative contracts, about what it means.

We have some thoughts on that topic, should you be interested, at Section 2(a)(iii).

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_2(c)&oldid=81165"