Template:Emissions force majeure overview: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Functionally, the definitions of “Force Majeure” under Clause {{efetaprov|7.1}} the [[EFET Allowances Annex|EFET Annex]] and Clause {{ietaprov|13}} of the [[IETA Master Agreement|IETA]], and “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}” under {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{euadefs}} are the same.  
Functionally, the definitions of “Force Majeure” under Clause {{efetaprov|7.1}} the [[EFET Allowances Annex|EFET Annex]] and Clause {{ietaprov|13}} of the [[IETA Master Agreement|IETA]], and “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}” under {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{euadefs}} are the same — here is a {{diff|77069|77068}} between IETA and EFET, and here is a {{diff||}} between EFET and ISDA —  so you do wonder whose idea it was to call it something different.  


Here is a {{diff|77069|77068}} between IETA and EFET, and here is a {{diff||}} between EFET and ISDA.
Let us speculate: the IETA was written first, is independent of the {{isda}} universe, and for reasons best known to IETA’s {{Cds}}, they decided to call this a “Force Majeure”. Being an event beyond the reasonable control of the affected party there is some logic to this.  


The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else.
{{icds}} was, as usual, late to the “novel asset class” party and, as it couldn’t find a spot, decided to park its tanks on IETA’s lawn, borrowing much of the technology wholesale but unable to call this event a {{ietaprov|Force Majeure}} because the {{isdama}} ''already has a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}'', this is quite different — for whatever reason, the timings are a lot longer — and that would confuse people even beyond ISDA’s tolerance for confusing people.<ref>Seeing as the {{ietama}} borrows technology from the {{1992ma}} is is conceivable that IETA’s {{cds}} didn’t ''realise'' there was a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{2002ma}}, as there was not one in the {{1992ma}}. I am guessing. </ref>


[[Force Majeure - IETA Provision|This]] is the {{ietama}}’s equivalent of a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} in the {{emissionsannex}}. It is broadly the same, so you do wonder whose idea it was to call it something different.
So {{icds}} went with its product specific “stuff happens” label, “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}”.


Let us speculate: the IETA was written first, is independent of the {{isda}} universe, and for reasons best known to IETA’s {{Cds}}, they decided to call this a Force Majeure. Being beyond the reasonable control of the affected party this is not entirely unreasonable.
The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else.
 
{{icds}} was, as usual, late to the “novel asset class” party and, as it couldn’t find a spot, decided to park its tanks on IETA’s lawn, borrowing much of the technology wholesale but unable to call this event a {{ietaprov|Force Majeure}} because the {{isdama}} ''already has a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}'', this is quite different, and that would confuse people even beyond ISDA’s tolerance for confusing people.<ref>Seeing as the {{ietama}} borrows a bit of technology from the {{1992ma}} is is conceivable that IETA’s {{cds}} didn’t realise there was a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{2002ma}}, as there was not one in the {{1992ma}}. I am guessing. </ref>
 
So {{icds}} went with its product specific “stuff happens” label, {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}.

Revision as of 16:03, 7 September 2023

Functionally, the definitions of “Force Majeure” under Clause 7.1 the EFET Annex and Clause 13 of the IETA, and “Settlement Disruption Event” under (d)(i)(4) of the ISDA Emissions Annex are the same — here is a comparison between IETA and EFET, and here is a comparison between EFET and ISDA — so you do wonder whose idea it was to call it something different.

Let us speculate: the IETA was written first, is independent of the ISDA universe, and for reasons best known to IETA’s crack drafting squad™, they decided to call this a “Force Majeure”. Being an event beyond the reasonable control of the affected party there is some logic to this.

ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ was, as usual, late to the “novel asset class” party and, as it couldn’t find a spot, decided to park its tanks on IETA’s lawn, borrowing much of the technology wholesale but unable to call this event a Force Majeure because the ISDA Master Agreement already has a Force Majeure Event, this is quite different — for whatever reason, the timings are a lot longer — and that would confuse people even beyond ISDA’s tolerance for confusing people.[1]

So ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ went with its product specific “stuff happens” label, “Settlement Disruption Event”.

The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the ISDA Emissions Annex is called a Settlement Disruption Event because there is already a Force Majeure under the 2002 ISDA so the ’squad had to call their version something else.

  1. ↑ Seeing as the IETA Master Agreement borrows technology from the 1992 ISDA is is conceivable that IETA’s crack drafting squad™ didn’t realise there was a Force Majeure Event in the 2002 ISDA, as there was not one in the 1992 ISDA. I am guessing.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Emissions_force_majeure_overview&oldid=77964"