|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In the heyday of ISDA negotiation<ref>For the record, I put the [[golden age of ISDA negotiation]] as late 90s, early noughties. We were young, carefree, crazy kids.</ref> just who was the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} and how one should value and terminate an {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transaction}} used to be much more of a source of controversy than it is today.
| | {{isda Affected Party detail|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| This might be a function of the market’s general move to the {{2002ma}} closeout methodology, being far less fraught and bamboozling then the one in the {{1992ma}}, refraining as it does from absurdities like the {{isda92prov|First Method}} and alternative {{isda92prov|Market}} and {{isda92prov|Loss}} methods of valuing replacement transactions. Even those who insist on staying with the {{1992ma}} — Hello, Cleveland! — are often persuaded to upgrade the closeout methodology.
| |
| | |
| It might also be that the specific expertise as to what happens in a [[close out]] has dissipated over the years as swap [[dealer]]s and [[investment manager]]s have [[outsourced]] and [[downskilled]] their [[negotiation]] functions.
| |
| | |
| But the [[JC]] likes to think that in this mature market, the [[commercial imperative]] plays a part here. {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}} come in two types: catastrophic ones, which signal the end of the relationship — and usually the ongoing viability of one of the counterparties — altogether; and and {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-specific ones, which no-one intended or wanted, everyone regrets, but which will soon be water under the bridge, for parties who will continue to trade new derivatives into glorious, golden perpetuity.
| |
| | |
| Now any swap [[dealer]] who who regards a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-specific {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} as an opportunity to gouge its counterparty can expect a frosty reception next time its salespeople are pitching new trading axes to the CIO.
| |
| | |
| On the other hand if, when your [[valuation]] reaches her, the [[CIO]] is wandering around outside her building with an [[Iron Mountain box]], she will be less bothered about about the wantonness of your termination mark — it being no longer her problem — and to the extent she does care about it all, will console herself with the reality that you are not likely to see much of that money anyway once her former employer’s [[insolvency estate]] has been wound up.
| |