Second Method - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{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.
- 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.