Termination Currency Equivalent - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|Termination Currency Equivalent|}} | {{isdaanat|Termination Currency Equivalent|}} | ||
A fabulous example of the English language getting the better of a committee of seasoned professional users of that language, ISDA’s remarkable “{{isdaprov|Termination Currency Equivalent}}” definition erodes the fabric into which the basic assumptions of people who share a common language are woven. | |||
They have managed to convolute to the point of incomprehensibility an intellectual concept that is well enough described by the three words of its name. Who would labour under a doubt, and how serious would such a doubt be, about the expression, “one party must pay the other the amount in its ''termination currency equivalent''”? Failing that, “one party must pay the other ''an equivalent amount in the termination currency''”? | |||
The idea of an amount in one currency of an amount expressed in another really ought not be that hard to master, but to see how hard someone with [[profound ontological uncertainty]] can make it, have a gander at this ==> | |||
===User guide=== | ===User guide=== |
Revision as of 19:05, 24 April 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
If there is an Innocent Party, it will select the FX agent in good faith. If not, the parties must agree the FX agent.
view template
|
A fabulous example of the English language getting the better of a committee of seasoned professional users of that language, ISDA’s remarkable “Termination Currency Equivalent” definition erodes the fabric into which the basic assumptions of people who share a common language are woven.
They have managed to convolute to the point of incomprehensibility an intellectual concept that is well enough described by the three words of its name. Who would labour under a doubt, and how serious would such a doubt be, about the expression, “one party must pay the other the amount in its termination currency equivalent”? Failing that, “one party must pay the other an equivalent amount in the termination currency”?
The idea of an amount in one currency of an amount expressed in another really ought not be that hard to master, but to see how hard someone with profound ontological uncertainty can make it, have a gander at this ==>
User guide
Here’s what the Encyclopaedia Galactica has to say about Termination Currency Equivalent:
- Under the 2002 ISDA, a payment on early termination will be made in the Termination Currency. The “Termination Currency” must be specified in Part 1(f) of the Schedule to the 2002 ISDA and, if not specified or the currency specified is not freely available, the fallback will be U.S. dollar for a 2002 Agreement governed by New York law, and the euro if a 2002 ISDA is governed by English law. The 1992 Agreement had a U.S. dollar fallback regardless of the governing law of the 1992 ISDA. In calculating amounts payable, any Close-out Amount or Unpaid Amount is converted to a “Termination Currency Equivalent” on the basis of an exchange rate determined in accordance with the 2002 ISDA by a foreign exchange agent.