|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{fullanat|isda|Market Quotation|1992}} | | {{newisda92manual|Market Quotation}} |
| {{isdacomparison}}
| |
| {{means}}
| |
| {{nuts|ISDA|Market Quotation}}
| |
| | |
| ==Commentary==
| |
| *'''Pricing methodology''': Note that this quote comprises a portfolio of transactions on identical economic terms (including collateralisation), but between the {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}} and the relevant market maker; i.e. you don't take into account the (almost inevitable) deterioration of the creditworthiness of the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}.
| |
| *'''Where there are fewer than three quotations''': By dint of the definition of {{isdaprov|Settlement Amount}}, if there are fewer that three quotations, or the determining party thinks the value provided by Market Quotation is commercially unrealistic, Market Quotation defaults to {{isdaprov|Loss}}.
| |
| | |
| ===Relationship to {{csaprov|Exposure}} under the {{csa}}===
| |
| Eagle-eyed observers will note that {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}} gets a name-check in the definition of {{csaprov|Exposure}} in the {{1995csa}}. So how does that work, you might ask, where you have a {{2002ma}} which doesn't ''have'' a definition of Market Quotation? Well, the answer lies in the [[2002 ISDA Master Agreement Protocol]]. As long as your counterparty has adopted that, then the provisions are converted over to 2002-speak as it were.
| |
| | |
| {{seealso}}
| |
| {{isia}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Loss}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}
| |