Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.1: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Note that where an {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}} occurs, the {{eqderivprov|Determining Party}}, rather than the {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}}, may be the person called on to calculate a {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}. (This is relevant especially where the {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}} is not the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}}, as the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} will have definite ideas about how to value cancellation vis a vis its own hedge). | Note that where an {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}} occurs, the {{eqderivprov|Determining Party}}, rather than the {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}}, may be the person called on to calculate a {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}. (This is relevant especially where the {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}} is not the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}}, as the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} will have definite ideas about how to value cancellation vis a vis its own hedge). | ||
==={{eqderivprov|Share for Share}}=== | ==={{eqderivprov|Share -for-Share}}=== | ||
Is it just is or did {{icds}} hit the wall on the definition of {{eqderivprov|Share for Share}}? What do you mean “and (ii) {{eqderivprov|Reverse Merger}}”? It ''looks like'' something is missing, but we think the rather exasperated tone is basically, “a reverse merger is necessarily {{eqderivprov|Share-for-Share}} so do we really nned to “wrap it round with deemery”, as {{Buchstein}} would say? Well, we are jolly well not going to, so see how you like that.” | Is it just is or did {{icds}} hit the wall on the definition of {{eqderivprov|Share-for-Share}}? What do you ''mean'', “and (ii) {{eqderivprov|Reverse Merger}}”? It ''looks like'' something is missing, but we think the rather exasperated tone is basically, “a reverse merger is necessarily {{eqderivprov|Share-for-Share}} so do we really nned to “wrap it round with deemery”, as {{Buchstein}} would say? Well, we are jolly well not going to, so see how you like that.” | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 12 May 2022
All hail the Determining Party
Note that where an Extraordinary Event occurs, the Determining Party, rather than the Calculation Agent, may be the person called on to calculate a Cancellation Amount. (This is relevant especially where the Calculation Agent is not the Hedging Party, as the Hedging Party will have definite ideas about how to value cancellation vis a vis its own hedge).
Is it just is or did ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ hit the wall on the definition of Share-for-Share? What do you mean, “and (ii) Reverse Merger”? It looks like something is missing, but we think the rather exasperated tone is basically, “a reverse merger is necessarily Share-for-Share so do we really nned to “wrap it round with deemery”, as Büchstein would say? Well, we are jolly well not going to, so see how you like that.”