Payments on Events of Default - ISDA Provision
|
1992 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Go premium
Crosscheck: 6(e)(i) in a Nutshell™
Original text
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
This page deals with Section 6(e)(i): the termination and close-out methodology upon an Event of Default — where one party has somehow at fault, rather than termination being imposed upon one or more innocents suffering at the hand of the externalities of a cruel and uncaring world. For termination and close out methodology in that world, see Section 6(e)(ii): see Payments on Termination Events.
The 1992 ISDA default close-out methodology is — was — hideous. There is not much point with a deltaview: they overhauled whole process of closing out an ISDA, soup to nuts, in the 2002 ISDA, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the 1992 ISDA, though 23 years later, that resistance seems at last to be breaking down.
Basics
One thing to say: this is one of the main places where the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA are very different. The 2002 Master Agreement dramatically simplifies and, after 20 odd years of curmudgeonly refusal to accept this, even the Americans now seem to acknowledge, improves the process of closing out an ISDA.
Anyway. You chose the 1992, so here we are. (Changed your mind? Flee to safety here).
Upon a Termination Event under the ISDA Master Agreement it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section Payments on Early Termination (ISDA Master Agreement Section 6(e) and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.
First Method
Fun fact: That terrible FT book about derivatives, and other like-minded sources, label the First Method a “limited two-way payments” clause, by which lights Long John Silver was a “limited two-legged pirate”. Less disingenuously also known as a “walkaway clause”, the First Method, which ensured that on close-out a Defaulting Party got paid nothing, regardless of how far in-the-money its Transactions were, was rarely used, even in the heady early 1990s, when derivatives seemed fun, new and mostly harmless.
Under the First Method, a payment is only ever made if the Settlement Amount is payable by the Defaulting Party to the Non-defaulting Party. This is, needless to say, a big fat free option against a Defaulting Party. The First Method is thus a back door to withhold payments that otherwise would due under the ISDA Master Agreement, it is hard to see why anyone in their right mind would give away this kind of optionality at the commencement of a derivative trading relationship, and, predictably, no one did.
Very, very rarely seen.
Second Method
The Second Method is a method of determining the Early Termination Amount due upon close out of an 1992 ISDA. Unlike the First Method, it requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the Terminated Transactions to whom it is due, regardless whether it is the Defaulting Party or the Non-defaulting party. I.e., the Defaulting Party might get paid. Nice, huh?
Transaction Valuation
The 1992 ISDA provides alternative ways of arriving at a value for your portfolio of Terminated Transactions. This probably seemed like a good idea to ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ at the time — hey look: acid wash denim seemed a good idea at the time, to someone — but it leads to complexity, confusion, fear and loathing.
- Market Quotation requires at least three arm’s length quotations to value the Transactions to be terminated. Since the Reference Market-makers won’t know anything about the state of your Transactions — and you are hardly likely to tell them — they can hardly be expected to factor your specific Unpaid Amounts into their quotations, so their quotations, if they even give you one,[1] will be to replace the remainder of the Transaction in the abstract, assuming all past payments have been made, and there are no Unpaid Amounts. Therefore, later on in your close-out calculation process, you will have to factor in those Unpaid Amounts yourself.
- Loss allows the Non-defaulting Party to figure out (in “good faith”) its losses and costs (minus its gains) replacing Terminated Transactions. While the NDP can to this by reference to dealer quotations, it doesn’t have to. Seeing as, unlike a Reference Market-maker, the NDP itself absolutely does know what the Unpaid Amounts are, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ thought it easier for the Loss calculation method to factor the Unpaid Amounts in right away, rather than doing that as a separate second step, as per Market Quotation. But this really just confuses things, when it could have all been simple.[2]
Premium content
|
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
|
See also
- Close-out Amount under the 2002 ISDA, which solved all this nonsense.
References
- ↑ They won’t.
- ↑ The 2002 ISDA and its Close-out Amount recognises that.