Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 1: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}: the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}=== | ===Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}: the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}=== | ||
Most of Section {{isdaprov|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{isdaprov|1(c)}} is important — by some lights, the main reason one even ''has'' an {{isdama}}: it vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis, purporting 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 feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, 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 in some jurisdictions mandatory [[insolvency set-off]] 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.” | “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 in some jurisdictions mandatory [[insolvency set-off]] 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.” | ||
Revision as of 16:53, 31 January 2020
Section 1(c): the Single Agreement
Most of Section 1 may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section 1(c) is important — by some lights, the main reason one even has an ISDA Master Agreement: it vouchsafes your close-out netting analysis, purporting 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 feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, 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) — the 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.
- ↑ Yes I know: Section 2(a)(iii). We’ll get to that. And in some jurisdictions mandatory insolvency set-off would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.