82,387
edits
Loss - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isda92anat|Loss}} | {{isda92anat|Loss}} | ||
{{isdaprov|Loss}} is a means of valuing {{isdaprov|Transactions}} following their {{isdaprov|Early Termination}} under the {{1992isda}}. Spoddy point: | {{isdaprov|Loss}} is a means of valuing {{isdaprov|Transactions}} following their {{isdaprov|Early Termination}} under the {{1992isda}}. Spoddy point: unlike its alternative {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, “{{isdaprov|Loss}}” ''includes'' the “{{isdaprov|Unpaid Amount}}” concept in its definition: | ||
:''{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant Early Termination Date and not made, | :''...{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) or (3) or {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A) applies...'' | ||
===Duplication? What duplication? Ohhhh — ''that'' duplication.=== | |||
There ''looks'' to be a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) and (3), and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A), all deal exclusively with ISDA master agreements where the parties have agreed {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and not {{isdaprov|Loss}}, applies. So there is, in fact, ''no'' risk of duplication, since the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}} is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement. ... until you look at the definition of {{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}}, which defaults to {{isdaprov|Loss}} (note: but ''not counting {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}}'' — it makes you weep doesn’t it) when, as most assuredly it will, {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} turns out to be a totally impractical means of valuing a {{isdaprov|Terminated Transaction}}, since ''no-one will give you a price for a trade they can’t actually enter''. | There ''looks'' to be a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) and (3), and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A), all deal exclusively with ISDA master agreements where the parties have agreed {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and not {{isdaprov|Loss}}, applies. So there is, in fact, ''no'' risk of duplication, since the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}} is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement. ... until you look at the definition of {{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}}, which defaults to {{isdaprov|Loss}} (note: but ''not counting {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}}'' — it makes you weep doesn’t it) when, as most assuredly it will, {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} turns out to be a totally impractical means of valuing a {{isdaprov|Terminated Transaction}}, since ''no-one will give you a price for a trade they can’t actually enter''. | ||