|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The {{nyvmcsaprov|default}} paragraph explains how you value the {{nyvmcsa}} itself — being a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} in its own right, of course — when closing out an {{isdama}}. The basic gist is that you treat the {{nyvmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}} as of the {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} — being the total value of the {{nyvmcsaprov|Credit Support}} you have ponied up at any time — as an {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}, rather than treating is as a contingent return obligation, the present value of which would go into the {{isdaprov|Close-Out Amount}} (or {{isdaprov|Loss}}, or {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, if you still labour under an antediluvian {{1992ma}}). <br>
| | [[7 - NY VM CSA Provision|Quite]] different to the default provision under the {{vmcsa}}, because the NY version is not a {{isdaprov|Transaction}}. |
| | |
| ===Why does it reference “{{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}s”?===
| |
| The {{nyvmcsa}} is technically a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} under the {{isdama}} in its own right — that is deep [[ISDA]] lore — but it is still a ''weird'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, and the standard “[[replacement cost]]” method of valuation doesn’t work brilliantly: rather than having defined payments upfront, each of which can be valued and discounted back to now to reveal a [[present value]], payment obligations under a {{nyvmcsa}} depend on the aggregate discounted cashflows of all the ''other'' {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under your {{isdama}} which the {{nyvmcsa}} covers. So good luck determining, in the abstract, the [[replacement cost]] of something like that.
| |
| | |
| But the good news is you don’t have to: the {{nyvmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}} isn’t calculated by reference to its own discounted future cashflows: rather, it is just the inverse of the aggregate present value of all the other {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under the {{isdama}}. So the “[[replacement cost]]” on any day is just the prevailing value of the {{nyvmcsaprov|Credit Support Balance}}. It’s easier to treat that as an {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}} (none of this tedious mucking about with replacement costs and so on). But that means you have to deem the {{isdaprov|Close-Out Amount}}<ref>Or {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}/{{isdaprov|Loss}}, if under a {{1992ma}}. Spoddy point: the definition of “{{isdaprov|Loss}}” in the {{1992ma}} ''includes'' the “{{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}” concept in the definition: “{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} and not made...” </ref> as zero.
| |
| | |
| ===Including “comprehensive” {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s===
| |
| Consider expanding of the {{nyvmcsa|Default}} provision to include “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s where all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s”. This is as per Section 3.2 of the 2001 ISDA Margin Provisions which recommend that Paragraph {{nyvmcsa|6}} of the {{tag|CSA}} should apply where all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are closed out following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or “Specified Condition” — the latter of which is defined to include the {{isdaprov|Termination Events}} listed under the {{isdama}}. It is likely that all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s would be {{isdaprov|Affected Transactions}} should a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} occur.
| |
Revision as of 16:22, 12 January 2022
Quite different to the default provision under the 2016 VM CSA, because the NY version is not a Transaction.