|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Section {{isdaprov|6(d)}} is to do with working out the termination value of {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s for which you’ve just designated an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}}: in the {{1992ma}} using {{isda92prov|Loss}} and {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}}, and all that {{isda92prov|Second Method}} malarkey, and in the {{2002ma}} the much neater and tidier {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} concept.
| | {{isda 6(d) summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| Generally, this is good [[fat tail|fat-tail]] paranoia material, so once upon a time parties used to negotiate it heavily. General [[SME]]-drain from the negotiation [[talent pool]] over the years due to vigorous [[Downgrading - waste article|down-skilling]] means people are less fussed about it now.
| |
| | |
| A popular parlour game among those [[negotiator|pedants]] who still insist on using the {{1992ma}}<ref>Or, in fairness, are ''forced to'' by some other pedant further up their chain, or a general institutional disposition towards pedantry.</ref> is to laboriously upgrade every inconsistent provision in the {{1992ma}} to the {{2002ma}} standard except the one provision of the {{1992ma}} they always liked — if the pedant is in question is from the [[Treasury]] department, that will be the longer [[grace period]] in the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}; if she is from [[Credit department|Credit]], it absolutely won’t be.
| |
| | |
| You might well ask why anyone would be so bloody-minded, but then you might well ask why anybody watches films from the ''Fast and Furious'' franchise. ''Because they can''.
| |
| | |
| Or, possibly, to preserve the slightly more generous [[grace period]]s for {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}}<ref>Three days in the {{1992ma}} versus one in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}<ref>Thirty days in the {{1992ma}} versus 15 in the {{2002ma}}.</ref> (in which case, you’d retrofit ''longer'' grace periods into the new version, wouldn’t you? But no).
| |