83,580
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
1985 Edition</big></big></big> | 1985 Edition</big></big></big> | ||
I mean check that baby out; did you see what they ''did'' there??? It's a goddamn ''[[acrostic]]''! Whoever heard of ''playfulness'' in the documentation of derivatives? | I mean check that baby out; did you see what they ''did'' there??? It's a goddamn ''[[acrostic]]''! Whoever heard of ''playfulness'' in the documentation of derivatives? The {{1985ma}} is the first ever attempt, by the [[Children of the Woods]], progenitors of the [[First Men]], those valiant but somehow feral predecessors to the latter-day crusading knights of {{icds}}, to make flesh and blood the idea of an ''{{isdama}}''. | ||
And we know, from that telltale acrostic, that these were not the humdrum, process-oriented, detail-obsessed boxwallahs who now run ISDA. These were capricious, flipsy, okay maybe a bit ''bookish'' rebels, drunk on the excitement of [[contracts for difference]], standing on the threshold of a brave new adventure. If only they could have seen where it would all end out. | |||
For all its paleontological significance the {{1985ma}} is a barebones thing indeed: Events of Default and Termination Events are there ... ''none''. Parties had to put them in the confirmation. Even failure to pay. | |||
So, no [[netting]], no [[single agreement]] — which kind of figures, since [[Basel Committee on Bank Supervision|BCB]] only hit on the idea of granting capital relief for netting arrangements in 1986 — no Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} — | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} |