Template:Isda 14 summ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Palaeontology 101: how things change==== | |||
The basic reason for the differences between the different editions: | |||
===== 1987 to 1992 ===== | |||
{{1987 v 1992 comparison summary|isda92prov}} | |||
===== 1992 to 2002 ===== | |||
{{1992 v 2002 comparison summary|isdaprov}} | |||
====A list of the definitions==== | ====A list of the definitions==== | ||
Here, for handy reference, is a list of all the definitions used in this edition of the {{isdama}}: | Here, for handy reference, is a list of all the definitions used in this edition of the {{isdama}}: | ||
{{{{{1}}} Section 14 TOC}} | {{{{{1}}} Section 14 TOC}} |
Latest revision as of 12:59, 5 September 2024
Palaeontology 101: how things change
The basic reason for the differences between the different editions:
1987 to 1992
The 1992 ISDA was introduced principally, to:
- Expand range of products covered: Expand beyond interest rate and currency swaps.
- Netting: Enhance and strengthen close-out netting.
- Market developments: Reflect market developments — the period between 1987 and 1992 was a massive growth in the swaps market, and lessons were learned.
- Physical delivery: Allow for physical delivery of underlying instruments referenced in a swap (the only “underlying” for rates and fx is cash, so the 1987 ISDA only needed to contemplate the payment of cash).
- Settlement Amounts: Introduce greater flexibility for determining Settlement Amounts on termination of Transactions (introducing the Loss, Market Quotation, First Method and Second Method regimes thereafter replaced in the 2002 ISDA by Close-out Amount).
- Two-way payments on termination: Under the 1987 ISDA a Defaulting Party is not entitled to termination payments. This is the so-called “limited two-way payments” provision which was a large part of the reason 1987 ISDAs were not reliable on netting.
- Settlement netting: more flexibility for netting groups of transactions under Section 2 - under the 1987 ISDA you could either net just within a single Transaction or across all Transactions but not, as standard, across a given subset of Transactions.
1992 to 2002
The 2002 ISDA was introduced, primarily, to:
- Loss/MQ begone: Finally take out to the woodshed the whole Loss/Market Quotation farrago (and all that First Method and Second Method nonsense) by introducing the Close-out Amount.
- Reference market makers, Settlement Amounts also begone: That meant no need for Reference Market-makers, Settlement Amounts and so on so they went too.
- Force majeure: finally make an honest man out of , well, God, by adding a Force Majeure Event under Section 5(b)(ii) — hitherto parties had boshed up something custom each time.
- Waiting Time for Illegality: The 2002 ISDA builds out Illegality to include the Waiting Period concept (also used in Force Majeure Event come to think of it).
- Set-off: To finally end the gruesome cottage industry of half-arsed, half-witted set-off provisions that don’t really work, by providing an express, fully-arsed half-witted set-off provision that doesn’t really work (Set-off under Section 6(f)).
A list of the definitions
Here, for handy reference, is a list of all the definitions used in this edition of the ISDA Master Agreement:
{{{{{1}}} Section 14 TOC}}