Second Method - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{fullanat|isda|6(e)(i)|1992}}
{{isda92anat|6(e)(i)}}
''Compare with {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} under the {{2002ma}}''<br><br>
''Compare with {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} under the {{2002ma}}''<br><br>
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}} 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}}.  
The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}} 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}}.  

Revision as of 16:59, 29 July 2019

Template:Isda92anat Compare with Close-out Amount under the 2002 ISDA

The Second Method is a method of determining the Early Termination Amount 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.

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