|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{fullanatopen|isda|{{tocbuilder|ISDA|2002|6}}}} | | {{newisdamanual|6}} |
| ===No [[No-fault termination|general termination]] right under the {{isdama}}===
| |
| Unlike the {{gmsla}} and many other — ahh, ''less sophisticated'' [[master agreement]]s<ref>Yes; there is some inter-[[industry association]] bitterness and snobbery here.</ref> — the {{isdama}} doesn’t have a general termination right of this sort ''at all''. It is like one of those fancy fixie pushbikes that cost seven grand and don’t even have brakes. You can ''only'' terminate {{isdaprov|Transactions}}, not the [[master agreement]] construct which sits around them. The empty vessel of a closed-out ISDA thus remains for all eternity as an immortal, ineffectual husk. This is to do with paranoid fears about the efficacy of the ISDA’s sainted [[close-out netting]] terms if you do terminate the agreement — meh; maybe — but I like to think it is because, before he was cast out from heaven, the [[Dark Lord]]<ref>Sauron, Beelzebub, [[Nosferatu]], [[Lehman Brothers]] etc.</ref> made plans to unleash his retributive fury upon the world through a sleeping army of wight-walker zombie ISDAs, doomed to roam the earth until the [[Omega|day of judgment]], ''apropos'' nothing but ''there'', not alive, but un-dead, ready to reanimate and rally to the Dark Lord’s banner and rain apocalyptic hell on we errant descendants of the [[Good Man]], who did not heed His warnings of [[financial weapons of mass destruction]].
| |
| ===How the {{isdaprov|Close-out}} mechanism Works===
| |
| An {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} gives the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} a right (but not an obligation) to designate an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} with respect to all outstanding {{isdaprov|Transactions}} on not more than 20 days' notice.
| |
| * Note that {{isdaprov|Automatic Early Termination}} removes that optionality in the event of a counterparty's insolvency and is, therefore, sub-optimal from the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}'s perspective, and thus should only be employed where the consequences of not having it would be worse (e.g. in jurisdictions where [[close-out netting]] may be challenged in an insolvency but not before). (That is to say, this is one provision you should ''not'' insist on just because the other party insists upon it against you).
| |
| * For what this optionality not to terminate means, and how controversial it can be, see the commentary to Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. <br>
| |
| Once all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are terminated, you move to Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} which directs how to value the transactions (it depends on who is the Defaulting Party, and whether you have elected {{isdaprov|Loss}} or {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and {{isdaprov|First Method}} or {{isdaprov|Second Method}}. Under the {{2002ma}} it is much easier.
| |
| | |
| {{ref}}
| |