Template:Isda 3 comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "There is no “{{isdaprov|No Agency}}” representation in the {{1992ma}}. Part of the ritual of negotiating a 92 ISDA was — in America, we imagine, ''is'' — to put one in, so when those kill-joys on {{icds}} shunted one into the {{2002ma}} it will have ruined a few people’s days — so much so that, in some quarters, they still use the {{1992ma}} as a standard. Americans, for example. A JC digression, if I may. The {{2002ma}} was published now over two decades ag..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The Representations have remained largely intact since the {{1987ma}}: here is a {{diff|86392|86391}} between the {{1987ma}} and {{2002ma}} to illustrate that. | |||
There is no “{{isdaprov|No Agency}}” representation in the {{1992ma}}. Part of the ritual of negotiating a 92 ISDA was — in America, we imagine, ''is'' — to put one in, so when those kill-joys on {{icds}} shunted one into the {{2002ma}} it will have ruined a few people’s days — so much so that, in some quarters, they still use the {{1992ma}} as a standard. Americans, for example. | There is no “{{isdaprov|No Agency}}” representation in the {{1992ma}}. Part of the ritual of negotiating a 92 ISDA was — in America, we imagine, ''is'' — to put one in, so when those kill-joys on {{icds}} shunted one into the {{2002ma}} it will have ruined a few people’s days — so much so that, in some quarters, they still use the {{1992ma}} as a standard. Americans, for example. | ||
Revision as of 11:37, 4 June 2024
The Representations have remained largely intact since the 1987 ISDA: here is a comparison between the 1987 ISDA and 2002 ISDA to illustrate that.
There is no “No Agency” representation in the 1992 ISDA. Part of the ritual of negotiating a 92 ISDA was — in America, we imagine, is — to put one in, so when those kill-joys on ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ shunted one into the 2002 ISDA it will have ruined a few people’s days — so much so that, in some quarters, they still use the 1992 ISDA as a standard. Americans, for example.
A JC digression, if I may. The 2002 ISDA was published now over two decades ago. Since 1992, a great deal has happened which the derivatives industry has learned from: the Internet; email; Enron, LTCM, the Russian Crisis, the GFC, the LIBOR scandal, COVID, the rise and fall of asset classes, cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence (... yes and they are sure to rise again, and crush us all. Keep holding your breath). Nevertheless, we are stuck in our ways. Not only has the 2002 ISDA not been updated, or even an update even proposed, large parts of the derivatives market — and the most sophisticated, heavy-hitting parts of that market, what is more: the American parts — still trade on the 1992 agreement.
We mention this not to make fun of Americans, or the derivatives industry more generally, however they richly deserve it — we do plenty enough of that in these pages as it is — but to temper the expectations of those who think anything is going to change any time soon. There are far too many vested, rent-seeking interests in things chuntering along just how they are for anyone to be seriously confronted with the idea of having to adopt anything new. Allen Farrington might claim that Bitcoin fixes a lot of things: it does not fix this.