83,054
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''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}}. | *'''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}}. | *'''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. | |||
{{isdaanatomy}} | {{isdaanatomy}} |