Calculations - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|6(d)}} | {{isdaanat|6(d)}} | ||
A popular parlour game amongst those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up the chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision to the {{2002ma}} standard. You might well ask why, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''. Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, downgrade the new version, wouldn't you? But no). | A popular parlour game amongst those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up the chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision to the {{2002ma}} standard. | ||
You might well ask why, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''. Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, downgrade the new version, wouldn't you? But no). | |||
This clause has nothing to do with [[grace period]]s and everything to do with {{isdaprov|Loss}} and {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} ({{1992ma}}) or {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s ({{2002ma}}) so expect to see it modified. Wiki DV set out below. | This clause has nothing to do with [[grace period]]s and everything to do with {{isdaprov|Loss}} and {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} ({{1992ma}}) or {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}s ({{2002ma}}) so expect to see it modified. Wiki DV set out below. | ||
Here is a {{Diff|35638|35639}} between the 1992 and 2002 versions | |||
<small>'''Previous''': {{isdaprov|6(a)}} | {{isdaprov|6(b)}} | {{isdaprov|6(c)}} '''Next''': {{isdaprov|6(e)}} </small> | <small>'''Previous''': {{isdaprov|6(a)}} | {{isdaprov|6(b)}} | {{isdaprov|6(c)}} '''Next''': {{isdaprov|6(e)}} </small> | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |
Revision as of 09:35, 17 December 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
A popular parlour game amongst those pedants who still insist on using the 1992 ISDA[1] is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision to the 2002 ISDA standard.
You might well ask why, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the Fast and Furious franchise. Because they can. Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous grace periods for Failure to Pay[2] and Bankruptcy[3] (in which case, downgrade the new version, wouldn't you? But no).
This clause has nothing to do with grace periods and everything to do with Loss and Market Quotation (1992 ISDA) or Close-out Amounts (2002 ISDA) so expect to see it modified. Wiki DV set out below.
Here is a comparison between the 1992 and 2002 versions
Previous: 6(a) | 6(b) | 6(c) Next: 6(e)