Template:Isda 5(a)(v) summ: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Isda 5(a)(v) summ (view source)

Revision as of 17:22, 25 December 2023

3,539 bytes added , 25 December 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,900

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+The connoisseur’s [[negotiation oubliette]].
 {{Dust capsule|{{{1}}}}}
-===Voltaire and [[DUST]]===
+=====Changes from the 1992 Master Agreement=====
-In which {{icds}} got bogged down in the weeds once in [[1987 ISDA Interest Rate and Currency Exchange Agreement|1987]], doubled down in their in-weed begged-downness in [[2002 ISDA Master Agreement|2002]], and we’ve been dealing with resulting confusion ever since. A case of [[Voltaire’s maxim|perfection being the enemy of good enough]], as Voltaire would say, in the [[JC]]’s humble opinion, eslecially in these modern times where, thanks to complulsory daily zero-threshold margining, [[DUST]] is even more of a dead letter than it even was in the good old days. To our knowledge, no {{isdama}} in history has been closed out using, ''exclusively'', Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(v)}}.
+DUST overwent quite a makeover in the {{2002ma}}. For example:
+''[[Mini-closeout]] carveout'': Defaults require the [[acceleration]] of just ''the'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}} in question (for ''general'' defaults) but off ''all'' outstanding transactions under the relevant [[master agreement]] (for ''[[delivery]]'' defaults). This change was made with [[mini-close-out]] under [[repo]]s and [[stock loan]]s in mind — a concept which the stock loan market invented after the {{1992ma}} was published, so you can’t blame {{icds}} for overlooking it at first — where delivery failures under are common and do not of themselves indicate weakness in the {{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}}’s creditworthiness.
+''Credit support failures covered'': {{isdaprov|DUST}} under the {{2002ma}} can be triggered by default under a [[credit support arrangement]] relating to a {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}. These weren’t included for the {{1992isda}} {{isda92prov|DUST}}.
+''Shortened [[cure period]]'': In tune with the general tightening up of cure periods — you know, we’re in a new millennium, computers work properly nowadays, and all that — the [[cure period]] for a failure to make a final or early termination payment on a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}} has been reduced from ''three'' days to ''one''. This caused many a [[credit officer]] to sadly shake her head and refuse to move to the new agreement.
+''[[Repudiation]] evidence'': [[Repudiation]] was modified to add the phrase “...or challenges the validity of ... after “... disaffirms, disclaims, repudiates or rejects ...” to reduce ambiguity as to whether a party’s action constitutes a repudiation. Also, we imagine, by way of stiffening the criteria for what counts as a [[repudiation]], the 2002 requires [[In writing|written evidence]] that the repudiating party has an [[extended middle finger]]. This rules out being able to close out cornered hedge-fund managers, having been “brought to the negotiating table” by their fund’svproximity to a [[NAV trigger]] and who are not enjoying having their “feet held to the fire”, shouting “Well, bugger you, I ''shan’t'' pay, and let’s see how you like ''that''” in the heat of the moment, when they really didn’t ''mean'' it, only to discover they had inadvertently repudiated a contract they were otherwise in perfect compliance with. Of course, no risk officer would dream of closing out an {{isdama}} based on an intemperate oral communication, or the [[proverbial extended middle finger]], for which she could not subsequently prove with fairly compelling evidence. But still.
+''Widened definition of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}'': The “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}” concept has been broadened to include additional transaction types such as [[repo]]s, and to include a catchall clause designed to include any future derivative products that have not been thought of yet.
+=====Voltaire and [[DUST]]=====
+In which {{icds}} got bogged down in the weeds once in [[1987 ISDA Interest Rate and Currency Exchange Agreement|1987]], doubled down in their in-weed bogged-downness in [[2002 ISDA Master Agreement|2002]], and we’ve been dealing with resulting confusion ever since. A case of [[Voltaire’s maxim|perfection being the enemy of good enough]], as Voltaire would say, in the [[JC]]’s humble opinion, especially in these modern times where, thanks to compulsory daily zero-threshold [[variation margin]]ing, [[DUST]] is even more of a dead letter than it even was in the good old days. To our knowledge, no {{isdama}} in history has been closed out using, ''exclusively'', Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(v)}}.
+That said, the {{1992ma}} version is a bit skew-wiff as regards mini-closeout, and you may find assiduous counterparties hungrily licking their lips at the prospect of a hearty negotiation about this bald man’s comb.
 We are talking about other derivative-''like'' transactions, between you and the same counterparty, where the counterparty presents a clear and present danger of blowing up, but where that behaviour has not yet manifested under the present {{isdama}}, meaning you have no grounds to blow them up directly. So, you know, fairly implausible scenario, but still. You want to use the event arising under this ''other'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}} to detonate the present ISDA. [[The squad]] breaks your ability to do so down in to four scenarios:
 *Counterparty fails to pay amounts falling due ''before'' maturity on a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, and you [[accelerate]] ''that'' transaction, but not necessarily others under the same [[master agreement]]. Here the principle is that ''any'' obligation to pay a sum of money on time is [[Fundamental breach|fundamental]], [[Time is of the essence|of the essence]] and speaks indelibly to a merchant’s credit, whether or not one accelerates other related Specified Transactions (though, actually, walk me through the scenarios in which you wouldn’t, or even weren’t ''obliged'' to?)
-*Counterparty fails to pay amounts falling due ''at'' maturity on a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, so you can’t “accelerate” as such on ''that'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, as it has matured, but you are still out of pocket and of a mind to press a big red button;
+*Counterparty fails to pay amounts falling due ''at'' maturity on a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, so you can’t “accelerate” as such on ''that'' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, as it has matured, but you are still out of pocket and of a mind to press a big red button — though, again, curiously, only on ''this'' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}} and not the other outstanding transactions under the same master agreement, even though you ''could'';
-*Counterparty [[Failure to deliver|fails to ''deliver'']] assets due under a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, and as a result you accelerate '''''all''''' {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}s under the affected [[master agreement]] (ie not just ''that'' transaction) —  this is designed to carve out things like [[mini close-out]] under a {{gmsla}} as these are not credit-related;
+*Counterparty [[Failure to deliver|fails to ''deliver'']] assets due under a {{{{{1}}}|Specified Transaction}}, and as a result you accelerate '''''the''''' {{isda92prov|Specified Transaction}} ({{1992isda}}) or '''''all''''' {{isdaprov|Specified Transaction}}s under the affected [[master agreement]] ({{2002isda}} —  the 2002 version being designed to carve out things like [[mini close-out]] under a {{gmsla}} as these are not credit-related;
 *Counterparty [[Repudiation|presents you an extended middle finger]] generally with regard to any obligation under any Specified Transaction, whether you accelerate it or not. Here if your counterparty is playing craziest dude in the room, it has committed a [[repudiatory breach]] thereby losing what moral high-ground it might otherwise stand on to expect you to follow form and protocol before closing it out.