Close-out Amount - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Close-out amount as a concept was introduced in the {{2002ma}} and doesn't exist under the {{1992ma}}. Instead, in the good old days, terminated transactions were valued according to {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} or {{isdaprov|Loss}} and those utterly unintuitive [[First Method - ISDA Provision|first]] and [[Second Method - ISDA Provision|second]] methods. | Close-out amount as a concept was introduced in the {{2002ma}} and doesn't exist under the {{1992ma}}. Instead, in the good old days, terminated transactions were valued according to {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} or {{isdaprov|Loss}} and those utterly unintuitive [[First Method - ISDA Provision|first]] and [[Second Method - ISDA Provision|second]] methods. | ||
Note prominent requirement to achieve a [[commercially reasonable]] result. On what that means see {{casenote|Barclays| | Note prominent requirement to achieve a [[commercially reasonable]] result. On what that means see {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}. | ||
There are some local variations which are worth bearing in mind: | There are some local variations which are worth bearing in mind: | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{casenote|Barclays| | *{{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}} on what amounts to acting in a [[commercially reasonable manner]] | ||
Revision as of 09:45, 6 June 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
The Determining Party will consider, taking into account the standards and procedures described in this definition, quotations pursuant to clause (i) above or relevant market data pursuant to clause (ii) above unless the Determining Party reasonably believes in good faith that such quotations or relevant market data are not readily available or would produce a result that would not satisfy those standards. When considering information described in clause (i), (ii) or (iii) above, the Determining Party may include costs of funding, to the extent costs of funding are not and would not be a component of the other information being utilised. Third parties supplying quotations pursuant to clause (i) above or market data pursuant to clause (ii) above may include, without limitation, dealers in the relevant markets, end-users of the relevant product, information vendors, brokers and other sources of market information.
view template
|
From the you'll be sorry you asked file. Have a butchers at the nutshell version on the right:
If, having read that, you're still not really feeling sorry, the full text (below) right might get your remorse radar pinging.
Close-out amount as a concept was introduced in the 2002 ISDA and doesn't exist under the 1992 ISDA. Instead, in the good old days, terminated transactions were valued according to Market Quotation or Loss and those utterly unintuitive first and second methods.
Note prominent requirement to achieve a commercially reasonable result. On what that means see Barclays v Unicredit.
There are some local variations which are worth bearing in mind:
Close-out Amount and Italian counterparties
See for more detail, here: Italian counterparties
Releationship with Early Termination Amount
For those curious about the difference between the Early Termination Amount and the Close-out Amount in the 2002 ISDA, look no further than back there, along the sentence you've just read. Go on!
See also
- Section 6(e) of the ISDA Master Agreement
- Early Termination Amount
- I’m sorry I asked
- Market Quotation
- Loss
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
See also
- Barclays v Unicredit on what amounts to acting in a commercially reasonable manner