Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 1: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Much of this comes from the “goes without saying, but we’ll say it anyway” dept — which is a large department indeed, in the annals of modern legal practice. But not the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}} part. That’s important — by some lights the main reason one even has an {{isdama}}: it is the Section which vouchsafes your [[cloe-out netting]] analysis: it purports to inextricably bind together all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might think the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with the six-month interest rate swap you put on in February last year, and the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically, if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. “Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure<ref>Yes I know: Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. We’ll get to that. And, also, set off in some jurisdictions, which would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.</ref> and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”
Much of this comes from the “goes without saying, but we’ll say it anyway” dept — which is a large department indeed, in the annals of modern legal practice. But not the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}} part. That’s important — by some lights the main reason one even has an {{isdama}}: it is the Section which vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis: it purports to inextricably bind together all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might think the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with the six-month interest rate swap you put on in February last year, and the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically, if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. “Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure<ref>Yes I know: Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. We’ll get to that. And, also, set off in some jurisdictions, which would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.</ref> and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”


You might be inclined to say, but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!
You might be inclined to say, “but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!”


Well, Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}} is your friend in making that argument. There are similar attempts in other agreements, but none is so classic and elegant as the {{isdama}}’s
Well, Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}} — tho one that says “it ''is'' all a single agreement, and we would never have done ''any'' of this if we had thought for a moment it might not be, and to prove it we are saying this out loud at the very inception of our derivatives relationship” is your friend in making that argument. There are similar provisions in other agreements, but none is so classic or elegant as the {{isdama}}’s


You see the same thing in the {{gtma}}, for that matter.
In a nutshell: DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. Why would you?
 
DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. And, any way why would you?
 
{{assignment and set off}}
 
{{sa}}
*[[Long form confirmation]]
*[[Single Agreement - GTMA Provision]]
{{ref}}

Revision as of 22:15, 28 January 2020

Much of this comes from the “goes without saying, but we’ll say it anyway” dept — which is a large department indeed, in the annals of modern legal practice. But not the Single Agreement part. That’s important — by some lights the main reason one even has an ISDA Master Agreement: it is the Section which vouchsafes your close-out netting analysis: it purports to inextricably bind together all Transactions under the ISDA Master Agreement as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might think the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with the six-month interest rate swap you put on in February last year, and the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically, if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money. “Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure[1] and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”

You might be inclined to say, “but wait: we should be able to set these off surely! This is all the same stuff, right! Swaps! They all go together! They’re not unitary transactions at all!”

Well, Section 1(c) — tho one that says “it is all a single agreement, and we would never have done any of this if we had thought for a moment it might not be, and to prove it we are saying this out loud at the very inception of our derivatives relationship” is your friend in making that argument. There are similar provisions in other agreements, but none is so classic or elegant as the ISDA Master Agreement’s

In a nutshell: DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. Why would you?

  1. ↑ Yes I know: Section 2(a)(iii). We’ll get to that. And, also, set off in some jurisdictions, which would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_1&oldid=39579"