Close-out Amount - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|isda|1992|Close-out Amount}}Now the dirty secret is that there ''isn’t'' a “Close-out Amount” as such under a {{1992ma}} but, in places on this wiki, we’ll refer to one anyway, because it is better, more elegant, more stylish prose than “the amount determined following early termination of a {{isda92prov|Terminated Transaction}} using {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} or {{isda92prov|Loss}} ([[as the case may be]]) and the {{isda92prov|Second Method}}, seeing as no-one in their right mind would agree to the {{isda92prov|First Method}}, under the {{1992ma}}”. In the context of a {{1992ma}} that is what we mean by “Close-out Amount”. | ||
{{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} is the shorthand term, introduced in the {{2002ma}} for the value you get from terminating {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s on a, well, close-out. The {{icds}} of the [[First Men]], were less committed to Ellroyesque machine-gun prose than were their millennial successors, you see. | {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} is the shorthand term, introduced in the {{2002ma}} for the value you get from terminating {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s on a, well, close-out. The {{icds}} of the [[First Men]], were less committed to Ellroyesque machine-gun prose than were their millennial successors, you see. |
Revision as of 15:45, 3 February 2024
Comparisons
ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ introduced the Close-out Amount into the 2002 ISDA to correct the total trainwreck of a close-out methodology set out in the 1992 ISDA.
So the dirty secret is that there isn’t a “Close-out Amount” as such under a 1992 ISDA (or the 1987 ISDA) but, in places on this wiki, we’ll refer to one anyway, because it is better, more elegant, more stylish prose than
“... the amount determined following early termination of a Terminated Transaction using Market Quotation or Loss (as the case may be) and the Second Method, seeing as no-one in their right mind would agree to the First Method, under the 1992 ISDA”.
In the context of a 1992 ISDA that is what we mean by “Close-out Amount”.
Key differences
Well, there are some significant differences between Close-out Amount and Loss/Market Quotation under the 1992 ISDA, and we go into these in more detail in the premium section Close-out Amount v Loss/MQ showdown.
Basics
In the “good old days” of the 1992 ISDA, you valued Terminated Transactions according to Market Quotation or Loss and those un-intuitive and — well,in the case of the first, flat-out nutso — “First” and “Second” Methods. There is a “Settlement Amount” concept under the 1992 ISDA, but it only really relates to Market Quotation.
Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “reasonable” (1992 ISDA) or “commercially reasonable” (2002 ISDA) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see Barclays v Unicredit. Spoiler: it’s basically good for brokers, as long as they aren’t being total dicks.
On the difference between an “Early Termination Amount” and a “Close-out Amount”
Regrettably, the 1992 ISDA features neither an Early Termination Amount nor a Close-out Amount. The 2002 ISDA has both, which looks like rather an indulgence until you realise that they do different things.
A Close-out Amount is the termination value for a single Transaction, or a related group of Transactions that a Non-Defaulting Party or Non-Affected Party calculates while closing out an 2002 ISDA, but it is not the final, overall sum due under the ISDA Master Agreement itself. Each of the determined Transaction Close-out Amounts summed with the various Unpaid Amounts to arrive at the Early Termination Amount, which is the total net sum due under the ISDA Master Agreement after the close-out process. (See Section 6(e)(i) for more on that).
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
|
See also
- Section 6(e) of the ISDA Master Agreement
- Early Termination Amount
- Barclays v Unicredit on what amounts to acting in a “commercially reasonable manner”
1992 equivalents
References
Now the dirty secret is that there isn’t a “Close-out Amount” as such under a 1992 ISDA but, in places on this wiki, we’ll refer to one anyway, because it is better, more elegant, more stylish prose than “the amount determined following early termination of a Terminated Transaction using Market Quotation or Loss (as the case may be) and the Second Method, seeing as no-one in their right mind would agree to the First Method, under the 1992 ISDA”. In the context of a 1992 ISDA that is what we mean by “Close-out Amount”.
Close-out Amount is the shorthand term, introduced in the 2002 ISDA for the value you get from terminating Transactions on a, well, close-out. The ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ of the First Men, were less committed to Ellroyesque machine-gun prose than were their millennial successors, you see.