The bilaterality, or not, of the ISDA: Difference between revisions

This has led to two kinds of bother: firstly a bit of a squabble as to who gets to be Party A and who Party B; since dealers set up their templates to assume they are one party and not the other, when immovable object meets irresistible force it can be unseemly. furthermore, when labouring over some neatly iatrogenic [[co-calculation agent]] fallback dispute mechanism upon which your opponent is hotly insisting— you will spend far more time doing this than can ever be justified by the reward in heaven or on earth that you will get for going through the process — it is all to easy to get your “[[Party A]]” and “[[Party B]]” back to front, thus burying deep a technical deficiency that no-one will notice until, eighteen years later, when the world is nearing its next [[Apocalypse|apocalyptic meltdown]], the [[Credit officer|chief credit officer]] is running around with her hair on fire, and everyone is glaring at the docs team because the ''key goddamn protection'' has a drafting glitch in it.