Expenses - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{fullanat2|isda|11|2002|11|1992}} | ||
Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, these two provisions are identical. And revolutionarily brief. | |||
Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, these two provisions are identical. And revolutionarily brief. Not that they ''couldn’t'' be improved, of course; they just weren’t. | |||
Not that they ''couldn’t'' be improved, of course; they just weren’t. | |||
The {{isdaprov|Expenses}} referred to in this provision would not be captured by the definition of "'''{{isdaprov|Close Out Amount}}'''" or "'''{{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}'''" because, [[qed]], they arise only once that amount has been determined and the non-defaulting party is in the process of collecting it. | The {{isdaprov|Expenses}} referred to in this provision would not be captured by the definition of "'''{{isdaprov|Close Out Amount}}'''" or "'''{{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}'''" because, [[qed]], they arise only once that amount has been determined and the non-defaulting party is in the process of collecting it. | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 22 March 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, these two provisions are identical. And revolutionarily brief.
Not that they couldn’t be improved, of course; they just weren’t.
The Expenses referred to in this provision would not be captured by the definition of "Close Out Amount" or "Early Termination Amount" because, qed, they arise only once that amount has been determined and the non-defaulting party is in the process of collecting it.