Calculation Agent: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
The ISDA Schedule has space to specify who the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} should be but, curiously, gives scant hints as to what such an agent should do: the term isn’t otherwised defined — or even used — in either version of the {{isdama}}. The role comes in to its own under the {{csa}} and the various definitions booklets ISDA has published. The Calculation agent can differ from transaction to transaction, and while guileless negotiation teams may therefore spend a great deal of energy haggling fruitlessly about who should be the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}}, and what rights the other poor sap should have to challenge its determinations, in practice it will be the [[dealer]].
The ISDA Schedule has space to specify who the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} should be but, curiously, gives scant hints as to what such an agent should do: the term isn’t otherwised defined — or even used — in either version of the {{isdama}}. The role comes in to its own under the {{csa}} and the various definitions booklets ISDA has published. The Calculation agent can differ from transaction to transaction, and while guileless negotiation teams may therefore spend a great deal of energy haggling fruitlessly about who should be the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}}, and what rights the other poor sap should have to challenge its determinations, in practice it will be the [[dealer]].


How strongly each feels about its right to ''query'' or ''dispute'' the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}}’s determinations will depend on the sort of products they’re expecting to trade: [[FX]] and simple [[equity derivative|equity derivatives]] have deep, liquid, observable markets, and as there’s little scope for picking a fight, a [[dealer]] {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} may not be bothered about ceding rights to dispute its calculations. Expect a different reaction should you seek to second-guess your [[dealer]]’s marks on exotic [[credit derivative|credit derivatives]], on the other hand. These rely enormously on the dealer’s internal models, pricing curves and other kinds of idiosyncratic financial [[bullshit|alchemy]] that are almost certainly unique to the [[dealer]] in question.
===[[Co-calculation agent]]===
{{cocalculationagent}}
===Other ISDA booklets===
As well as in the {{isdama}}, the term is defined separately in each definition booklet, giving everyone a nice opportunity for some [[clarifying hierarchy]] action:
As well as in the {{isdama}}, the term is defined separately in each definition booklet, giving everyone a nice opportunity for some [[clarifying hierarchy]] action:
*In the {{eqdefs}} at Section {{eqderivprov|1.40}};
*In the {{eqdefs}} at Section {{eqderivprov|1.40}};
*In the {{funddefs}} (in virtually identical terms to the {{eqdefs}}) at Section {{funddefprov|1.27}};
*In the {{funddefs}} (in virtually identical terms to the {{eqdefs}}) at Section {{funddefprov|1.27}};
*In the {{commoddefs}} at greater length in Section {{commoddefprov|4.5}};
*In the {{commoddefs}} at greater length in Section {{commoddefprov|4.5}};
===[[Co-calculation agent]]===
{{cocalculationagent}}
===Disputing a Calculation Agent’s determinations===
One of the great old saws of negotiation in any capital markets transaction is ''what to do if you don’t like the number the Calculation Agent comes up with''. This springs from the ancient, primal fear that flutters in the breast of every [[buy-side legal eagle]] which is best articulated thus: All swap dealers are innately mendacious. They care for nothing but their own pnl. They will thus not pause to breathe before ripping off their clients’ faces should the merest opportunity to do so arise. A unilateral right to determine values on a transaction to which they are the opposite side to the client is just such an opportunity. Therefore I must have a mechanic to dispute a calculation that seems “off”.
Now, to be fair, there was a time when in some markets swap dealers ''would'' rip off their clients’ faces at the merest opportunity. “Cheapest to deliver” options in managed CDO portfolios spring unhappily to mind. Banks used to “prop trade” a lot more than they do now. It is weird to trade derivatives with a bank you know is making directional money rather than accepting commissions. It has a stark conflict of interest. The Volcker rule has at least dampened that part of the market; the implosion of the world economy in 2008 killed off CDOs.
How strongly each feels about its right to ''query'' or ''dispute'' the {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}}’s determinations will depend on the sort of products they’re expecting to trade: [[FX]] and simple [[equity derivative|equity derivatives]] have deep, liquid, observable markets, and as there’s little scope for picking a fight, a [[dealer]] {{isdaprov|Calculation Agent}} may not be bothered about ceding rights to dispute its calculations. Expect a different reaction should you seek to second-guess your [[dealer]]’s marks on exotic [[credit derivative|credit derivatives]], on the other hand. These rely enormously on the dealer’s internal models, pricing curves and other kinds of idiosyncratic financial [[bullshit|alchemy]] that are almost certainly unique to the [[dealer]] in question.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*{{eqderivprov|Determining Party}}
*{{eqderivprov|Determining Party}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 10:01, 7 October 2022

ISDA Anatomy™
Secret Co-Calculation Agent Apathy, in a still from Otto Büchstein’s under-appreciated 1952 Opco Boone noir The Co-Calculation Agent Who Loved Me
Index: Click to expand:Navigation
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
The Varieties of ISDA Experience
Subject 2002 (wikitext) 1992 (wikitext) 1987 (wikitext)
Preamble Pre Pre Pre
Interpretation 1 1 1
Obligns/Payment 2 2 2
Representations 3 3 3
Agreements 4 4 4
EODs & Term Events 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSTCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityFMTax EventTEUMCEUMATE 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSTCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityTax EventTEUMCEUMATE 5 Events of Default: FTPDBreachCSDMisrepDUSSCross DefaultBankruptcyMWA Termination Events: IllegalityTax EventTEUMCEUM
Early Termination 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculations; Payment DatePayments on ETSet-off 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculationsPayments on ETSet-off 6 Early Termination: ET right on EODET right on TEEffect of DesignationCalculationsPayments on ET
Transfer 7 7 7
Contractual Currency 8 8 8
Miscellaneous 9 9 9
Offices; Multibranch Parties 10 10 10
Expenses 11 11 11
Notices 12 12 12
Governing Law 13 13 13
Definitions 14 14 14
Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule
Termination Provisions Part 1 Part 1 Part 1
Tax Representations Part 2 Part 2 Part 2
Documents for Delivery Part 3 Part 3 Part 3
Miscellaneous Part 4 Part 4 Part 4
Other Provisions Part 5 Part 5 Part 5
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Calculation Agent
/ˌkælkjʊˈleɪʃən ˈeɪʤənt/ (n.)
One who calculates things on behalf of contracting counterparties. In theory, under any kind of finance contract, but in practice, mainly in the ISDA and its extended fan-fiction universe (GMSLA, GMRA, DRV, FBF etc), and in the documentation of debt securities.

To be endlessly compared and contrasted with a “determination agent”, who determines things on behalf of contracting counterparties. Do “calculation” and “determination” differ? Not as far as this correspondent can see. You tend to say, perversely, that a Calculation Agent determines things, and a Determination Agent calculates things, but largely because elegant prose has a horror of repetition. But will that stop over-enthusiastic members of the bar waxing lengthily about how they do differ? it will not.[1]

In the ISDA

The ISDA Schedule has space to specify who the Calculation Agent should be but, curiously, gives scant hints as to what such an agent should do: the term isn’t otherwised defined — or even used — in either version of the ISDA Master Agreement. The role comes in to its own under the 1995 CSA and the various definitions booklets ISDA has published. The Calculation agent can differ from transaction to transaction, and while guileless negotiation teams may therefore spend a great deal of energy haggling fruitlessly about who should be the Calculation Agent, and what rights the other poor sap should have to challenge its determinations, in practice it will be the dealer.

As well as in the ISDA Master Agreement, the term is defined separately in each definition booklet, giving everyone a nice opportunity for some clarifying hierarchy action:

Co-calculation agent

There’s an old saying:

A co-calculation agent is no calculation agent.

However superficially neat this might seem to the age-old valuation dilemma of who should price the trade, it suffers in one important respect: unless the parties agree on the determination, the parties — er — won't agree on the determination. And then what do you do?

Disputing a Calculation Agent’s determinations

One of the great old saws of negotiation in any capital markets transaction is what to do if you don’t like the number the Calculation Agent comes up with. This springs from the ancient, primal fear that flutters in the breast of every buy-side legal eagle which is best articulated thus: All swap dealers are innately mendacious. They care for nothing but their own pnl. They will thus not pause to breathe before ripping off their clients’ faces should the merest opportunity to do so arise. A unilateral right to determine values on a transaction to which they are the opposite side to the client is just such an opportunity. Therefore I must have a mechanic to dispute a calculation that seems “off”.

Now, to be fair, there was a time when in some markets swap dealers would rip off their clients’ faces at the merest opportunity. “Cheapest to deliver” options in managed CDO portfolios spring unhappily to mind. Banks used to “prop trade” a lot more than they do now. It is weird to trade derivatives with a bank you know is making directional money rather than accepting commissions. It has a stark conflict of interest. The Volcker rule has at least dampened that part of the market; the implosion of the world economy in 2008 killed off CDOs.

How strongly each feels about its right to query or dispute the Calculation Agent’s determinations will depend on the sort of products they’re expecting to trade: FX and simple equity derivatives have deep, liquid, observable markets, and as there’s little scope for picking a fight, a dealer Calculation Agent may not be bothered about ceding rights to dispute its calculations. Expect a different reaction should you seek to second-guess your dealer’s marks on exotic credit derivatives, on the other hand. These rely enormously on the dealer’s internal models, pricing curves and other kinds of idiosyncratic financial alchemy that are almost certainly unique to the dealer in question.


See also

References

  1. Pedants will note the different roles played by the Calculation Agent and the Determining Party in the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions.