|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Like all good stories, the ISDA starts with a {{ {{{1}}}|Preamble}}. Everyone, once, stares at that gnomic title and thinks, “okay, what the hell is ''this'' all about?”
| | Little material difference between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} here. {{icds}} being, by 2002, a more world-weary, battle-hardened combat unit than it was in 1992, was more alive in the {{2002ma}} to the idea that one might confirm {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s other than via a full-blown {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}: those with [[MCA|master confirmation agreement]]s and who match commoditised swap transactions through online trade matching systems may appreciate this acknowledgment, but it still falls in the circular “goes without saying” filing cabinet in this commentator’s opinion. |
| | |
| Well, step this way, young padawan. Step into this rabbithole. A fellow called Gerald<ref>[http://legalfitz.co.nz/ Hi Gerald!]</ref> asked a callow young contrarian to look at an [[eye-ess-dee-aye|aye-ess-dee-aye]] once, in about 1995, and — well, here we all are, folks. Honestly, if I had known how much time I was going to spend with the damn thing I would have paid a lot more attention in the first place.
| |
| | |
| ====A word on industry associations====
| |
| ISDA, who publishes the ISDA, is the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. Those with a keen eye will note that, some time between 1992 and 2002, it rebranded from the “International Swap Dealers Association''s'', Inc.” — interesting plural, that, but in any case an outwardly ''sell-side'' outfit — to the more neutral-sounding “International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.”: singular, at the same time more unitary and more inclusive sounding, but still in spirit the same old ISDA, stake-held predominantly by the largest broker-dealers on the face of the Earth. It may have aspirations to conquer the world but for now ISDA remains a “dealer-community” association.
| |
| | |
| As we note [[The bilaterality, or not, of the ISDA|elsewhere]], there is typically a “sell-side” broker and a “buy-side” end user to an {{isdama}}.
| |
| | |
| These days the “buy-side lobby” is a lot bigger, more organised and better represented than it used to be, with AIMA (the Alternative Investment Management Association),<ref>https://www.aima.org</ref> EFAMA (the European Fund and Asset Management Association,<ref>https://www.efama.org</ref> the MFA (the Managed Funds Association),<ref>https://www.managedfunds.org</ref> (not to be confused, by the way, with the Fund Management Association of Kenya) and the IA (the Investment Association),<ref>https://www.theia.org</ref> representing their interests.
| |
| | |
| ====The preamble====
| |
| The {{ {{{1}}}|preamble}} is just the loosener before things get properly going, and there is not a lot to see. It has not really changed a lot between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} (nor indeed, from the {{1987ma}}, except that the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}} clause got promoted from a casual remark during the warm-up, in the {{1987ma}}, to the first searching delivery of the first over.<ref>Cricket metaphor. To our American readers, we would say sorry, except that we are not. There will be cricket analogies throughout.</ref>
| |
Little material difference between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA here. ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ being, by 2002, a more world-weary, battle-hardened combat unit than it was in 1992, was more alive in the 2002 ISDA to the idea that one might confirm Transactions other than via a full-blown Confirmation: those with master confirmation agreements and who match commoditised swap transactions through online trade matching systems may appreciate this acknowledgment, but it still falls in the circular “goes without saying” filing cabinet in this commentator’s opinion.