Template:Isda 5(a) summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} can generally be contrasted with {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s. They tend to be more focused on the outright creditworthiness of the Defaulting Party: whether it could, even if it wanted to, perform its obligations. {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}} on the other hand tend to be extraneous factors preventing a party from continuing the contract (Or making the contract uneconomic) even though it has the financial resources to do so. | |||
The broad thrust of the {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} is: | |||
{{L1}}'''Direct failures under the Master Agreement itself''': Direct contraventions of the {{isdama}} itself and its {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s by one of the principals to the contract. Within here we have: | {{L1}}'''Direct failures under the Master Agreement itself''': Direct contraventions of the {{isdama}} itself and its {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s by one of the principals to the contract. Within here we have: | ||
{{L2}} '''{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}}''', which became {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} when the cash-only {{1987ma}} gave way to the broader range of non-cash underlying assets under the {{1992ma}}; <li> | {{L2}} '''{{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}}''', which became {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} when the cash-only {{1987ma}} gave way to the broader range of non-cash underlying assets under the {{1992ma}}; <li> | ||
Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
'''Unacceptable credit deterioration''': The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} or its third-party {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s suffers a dramatic non-transactional reversal of fortunes such that the Non-Defaulting Party has credible doubts it will ever see its net [[in-the-money]] positions realised, whether or not they are currently [[in-the-money]]. Into this bucket goes: | '''Unacceptable credit deterioration''': The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} or its third-party {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s suffers a dramatic non-transactional reversal of fortunes such that the Non-Defaulting Party has credible doubts it will ever see its net [[in-the-money]] positions realised, whether or not they are currently [[in-the-money]]. Into this bucket goes: | ||
{{L2}}'''{{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}''': The Defaulting Party suffers one of the many different ways a merchant can go ''[[titten hoch]]''. There are a ''lot'' of them, and they are fraught;<li> | {{L2}}'''{{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}''': The Defaulting Party suffers one of the many different ways a merchant can go ''[[titten hoch]]''. There are a ''lot'' of them, and they are fraught;<li> | ||
'''{{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}}''': The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} is somehow taken over, reincorporated, reconstituted through a [[corporate action|corporate event]] or otherwise magicked into a spiritual realm in which its earthly debts and obligations are not taken up by whomever the resulting entity is. | '''{{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}}''': The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} is somehow taken over, reincorporated, reconstituted through a [[corporate action|corporate event]] or otherwise magicked into a spiritual realm in which its earthly debts and obligations are not taken up by whomever the resulting entity is.</ol> | ||
{{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} by nature, speak to fundamental and time-honoured verities of the financial system, so it should not be a great surprise that they have not really changed throughout the three major versions of the {{isdama}}. | |||
Honourable mention should also go to the {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s that credit department will insist on shoehorning into the schedule in a bid to stay relevant: while these are not Events of Default as such, they tend to have a same credit-related quality to them |
Revision as of 16:54, 7 September 2024
{{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} can generally be contrasted with {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s. They tend to be more focused on the outright creditworthiness of the Defaulting Party: whether it could, even if it wanted to, perform its obligations. {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}} on the other hand tend to be extraneous factors preventing a party from continuing the contract (Or making the contract uneconomic) even though it has the financial resources to do so.
The broad thrust of the {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} is:
- Direct failures under the Master Agreement itself: Direct contraventions of the ISDA Master Agreement itself and its {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s by one of the principals to the contract. Within here we have:
- {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}}, which became {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} when the cash-only 1987 ISDA gave way to the broader range of non-cash underlying assets under the 1992 ISDA;
- {{{{{1}}}|Breach of Agreement}}: Breach of any obligation other than a payment or delivery obligation
- {{{{{1}}}|Misrepresentation}}: Breach of any cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die sort of precontractual representation made undere the contract
- {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Default}}: Failure to provide collateral under a Credit Support Document. While in ordinary banking world a credit support obligation would generally be provided by someone other than a party to the contract. This is not so on Planet ISDA: (some) CSAs and CSDs are “Credit Support Documents”. So this counts as these are mainly principal obligations of the parties themselves (though of course end users will often be guaranteed).
-
Direct failures under other Agreements: Direct contraventions by parties to the ISDA Master Agreement of other contractual obligations that are sufficiently serious to make the Non-Defaulting Party freak under the ISDA Master Agreement. Within this bucket we have:
- {{{{{1}}}|Default under Specified Transaction}}: The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} fails directly to the {{{{{1}}}|Non-Defaulting Party}} to perform under a swap-like transaction, only one that is not documented under the ISDA Master Agreement itself, but under a different master trading agreement;
- {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}: The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} fails directly to the {{{{{1}}}|Non-Defaulting Party}} to perform to someone else altogether under a loan-like Transaction, over a certain {{{{{1}}}|Threshold}};
-
Unacceptable credit deterioration: The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} or its third-party {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s suffers a dramatic non-transactional reversal of fortunes such that the Non-Defaulting Party has credible doubts it will ever see its net in-the-money positions realised, whether or not they are currently in-the-money. Into this bucket goes:
- {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}: The Defaulting Party suffers one of the many different ways a merchant can go titten hoch. There are a lot of them, and they are fraught;
- {{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}}: The {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} is somehow taken over, reincorporated, reconstituted through a corporate event or otherwise magicked into a spiritual realm in which its earthly debts and obligations are not taken up by whomever the resulting entity is.
{{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} by nature, speak to fundamental and time-honoured verities of the financial system, so it should not be a great surprise that they have not really changed throughout the three major versions of the ISDA Master Agreement. Honourable mention should also go to the {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s that credit department will insist on shoehorning into the schedule in a bid to stay relevant: while these are not Events of Default as such, they tend to have a same credit-related quality to them