Second Method - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Termination Payment}} | {{fullanat|isda|Second Method|2002}} | ||
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Early Termination Payment}} due upon close out of an {{1992ma}}. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment ''to'' the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}. | |||
In case of a termination event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this. | In case of a termination event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} and Schedule 1(f)) covers this. | ||
Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
===See also=== | ===See also=== | ||
*{{isdaprov|General Conditions}} - the ominous subject of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} and the [[Metavante]] case. | *{{isdaprov|General Conditions}} - the ominous subject of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} and the [[Metavante]] case. | ||
*{{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} - the {{2002ma}} equivalent. | |||
{{ |
Revision as of 19:01, 20 March 2018
The Second Method is a method of determining the Early Termination Payment due upon close out of an 1992 ISDA. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment to the Defaulting Party. In case of a termination event under the ISDA Master Agreement it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section Payments on Early Termination (ISDA Master Agreement Section 6(e) and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.
- Market Quotation requires at least three arm's length quotations to value the transactions to be terminated, compared to Loss where the Non-defaulting party determines (in "good faith") the losses and costs (minus its gains) in potentially replacing Terminated Transactions.
- Second Method: the net close-out amount is always paid out to the party to whom it is due, regardless whether it is the Defaulting Party or the Non-defaulting party.
Comparison with the First Method
Not generally used, under the First Method, a payment is only ever made by the Defaulting Party to the Non-defaulting Party. Which is a bit rubbish, and plays havoc with capital adequacy calculations. The First Method is thus a back door to withhold payments due under the ISDA Master Agreement and set those off with other (possible) defaulted payments and is therefore undesirable.
See also
- General Conditions - the ominous subject of Section 2(a)(iii) and the Metavante case.
- Close-out Amount - the 2002 ISDA equivalent.