Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 6(d): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This clause | This clause is to do with working out the termination value of {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s for which you’ve just designated an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}}: in the {{1992ma}} using {{isda92prov|Loss}} and {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}}, and all that {{isda92prov|Second Method}} malarkey, and in the {{2002ma}} the much neater and tidier {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} concept. | ||
Generally, this is good fat-tail paranoia material, so once upon a time parties used to negotiate it heavily. General [[SME]]-drain from the negotiation [[talent pool]] over the years due to vigorous [[Downgrading - waste article|down-skilling]] means people are less fussed about it now. | |||
A popular parlour game among those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up their chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the {{1992ma}} to the {{2002ma}} standard except the one provision of the {{1992ma}} they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the [[Treasury]] department, that will be the longer [[grace period]] in the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}; if she is from [[Credit department|Credit]], it absolutely won’t be. | A popular parlour game among those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up their chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the {{1992ma}} to the {{2002ma}} standard except the one provision of the {{1992ma}} they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the [[Treasury]] department, that will be the longer [[grace period]] in the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}; if she is from [[Credit department|Credit]], it absolutely won’t be. | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 13 March 2020
This clause is to do with working out the termination value of Transactions for which you’ve just designated an Early Termination Date: in the 1992 ISDA using Loss and Market Quotation, and all that Second Method malarkey, and in the 2002 ISDA the much neater and tidier Close-out Amount concept.
Generally, this is good fat-tail paranoia material, so once upon a time parties used to negotiate it heavily. General SME-drain from the negotiation talent pool over the years due to vigorous down-skilling means people are less fussed about it now.
A popular parlour game among those pedants who still insist on using the 1992 ISDA[1] is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the 1992 ISDA to the 2002 ISDA standard except the one provision of the 1992 ISDA they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the Treasury department, that will be the longer grace period in the Failure to Pay; if she is from Credit, it absolutely won’t be.
You might well ask why anyone would be so bloody-minded, 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, you’d retrofit longer grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no).