82,891
edits
Template:Isda 6(e) comp: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Isda 6(e)(i) comp|isdaprov}} {{Isda 6(e)(ii) comp|isdaprov}} {{Isda 6(e)(iii) comp|isdaprov}} {{Isda 6(e)(iv) comp|isdaprov}} {{Isda 6(e)(v) comp|isdaprov}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | ''Compare with {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} under the {{2002ma}}'' | ||
{{ | |||
{{ | [[6(e)(i) - 1992 ISDA provision|The]] {{1992ma}} [[close-out]] methodology is hideous. They overhauled whole process of closing out an ISDA, soup to nuts, in the {{2002ma}}, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about {{icds}}’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the {{1992ma}}. Odd. | ||
{{ | |||
{{ | Differences, in very brief: | ||
The {{1992ma}} has the infamous {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} and {{isda92prov|Loss}} measures of value, and the perennially-ignored {{isda92prov|First Method}} and the more sensible {{isda92prov|Second Method}} means of evaluating the termination value of terminated {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}. The {{2002ma}} has just the {{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} to cover everything. So while the {{1992ma}} is far more elaborate and over-engineered, this is not to deny that the {{2002ma}} is elaborate or over-engineeered. | |||
The {{2002ma}} has a new Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(iv)}} dealing with {{isdaprov|Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event}}. This wasn’t needed in the {{1992ma}}, which didn’t have {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} at all, and a less sophisticated {{isda92prov|Illegality}}. | |||