Template:Isda 1 summ

Section 1 is a gentle introduction indeed to the dappled world of the ISDA Master Agreement: much coming from the “goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway” dept of legal wordwrightery — a large department indeed, in the annals of modern legal practice.

Section 1(a)

The large slew of definitions are set out in Section 14. the JC considers each in its own write elsewhere.

It wouldn’t be ISDA if there weren’t a hierarchy clause; like all hierarchy clauses, this one states what ought to be obvious: the pre-printed ISDA Master Agreement itself sits at the bottom of the hierarchy, is modified by the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}; once that is negotiated and stuck into the netting database, the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}} sits there, ungainly, unloved and unregarded until the Great King of Terror comes down from the sky and may be (but generally isn’t) modified as needs be for each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} by the {{ {{{1}}}|Confirmation}}.

In point of fact the {{ {{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s don’t tend to modify anything in the Master or {{ {{{1}}}|Schedule}}, but rather builds on them, but if there is inconsistency — and with a document as pedantic and overwrought as the ISDA Master Agreement you never know — then the most specific, recently edited document will be the one that prevails.

All of this follows from general principles of contractual interpretation and common sense communication, of course.

A message to internal audit and quality control teams

One quick point that only needs saying when busy-bodies from internal audit come on their biannual trip hunting for worms and earwigs under rocks in your neighbourhood: you — and by that we mean one — never, never, never “inline” amends the form of ISDA Master Agreement. It is sacred. Never to be edited. If, er, one wants to amend its terms — of course one does, one is a legal eagle and one’s client is special — you do that remotely by setting out the amendment in Part 5 of the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.

Why labour this obvious point? Because JC has had to explain to a disbelieving external audit consultancy, retained to ensure quality control over a portfolio of tens of thousands of master trading agreements, that there was no need for a control measuring the number of agreements that had been inline amended; no need for a core-sample test, a gap analysis or a nine-month all-points operational risk deep dive to be sure that this was the case — and it was an argument that ran for three weeks and which JC almost lost.

No-one, ever, inline amends the ISDA.

The ISDA Master Agreement is shot through with unimaginative design, unnecessary verbiage and conceptual convolution, but this is one design principle the ’squad got perfectly right: “offboarding” amendments to the Schedule does several smart things: it creates a neutral standard for all participants offering no scope for interrogation by sancimonious quality controllers, it makes very clear at a glance what has changed from the standard and most importantly it disincentivises formalistic fiddling: it is a rare — though by no means unknown — kind of pedant who insists on insertions like, “Section {{{{{1}}}|2(a)(i)}} is amended by adding, “, as the case may be” before the full stop on the third line.” {{isda 1(c) summ {{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}

Basically

In a nutshell — unless you are doing repackagings, and even then, don’t get carried away — make sure you understand what Section {{ {{{1}}}|1}} is there fore, but don’t mess with it.