|
|
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The ''' Second Method''' is a method of determining the {{isdaprov|Termination Payment]]s due upon close out of an ISDA Master Agreement. It requires a payment to be made equal to the net value of the terminated transactions, even if this means a payment ''to'' the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}. In the {{isdaprov|First Method}}, a payment is only ever made by the defaulting [party to the Non-defaulting party. Which is a bit rubbish, and plays havoc with capital adequacy calculations.
| | {{isda92manual|6(e)(i)}} |
| | |
| In case of a termination event under the {{isdama}} it is good to have your payment and calculation methods well-defined. The section {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}} ({{isdama}} Section 6(e) and Schedule 1(f)) covers this.
| |
| | |
| *'''{{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}''' requires at least three arm's length quotations to value the transactions to be terminated, compared to {{isdaprov|Loss}} where the Non-defaulting party determines (in 'good faith') the losses and costs (minus its gains) in potentially replacing {{isdaprov|Terminated Transactions}}.
| |
| | |
| *'''{{isdaprov|Second Method}}''': the net [[close-out]] amount is always paid out to the party to which it is due, regardless whether it is the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting party}}. {{isdaprov|First Method}} is a backdoor to withhold payments due under the [[ISDA]] and set those off with other (possible) defaulted payments and is therefore undesirable.
| |
| | |
| {{isdaanatomy}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|General Conditions}} - the ominous subject of Section 2(a)(iii) and the [[Metavante]] case.
| |