Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 1: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
===Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}: the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}===
===Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}: the {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}===
That’s important — by some lights, the main reason one even has an {{isdama}}: it vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis, purporting to inextricably bind together all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically, if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money.  
Most of Section {{isdaprov|1}} may be theatrical throat-clearing, but section {{isdaprov|1(c)}} is important — by some lights, the main reason one even ''has'' an {{isdama}}: it vouchsafes your [[close-out netting]] analysis, purporting to inextricably bind together all {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} as part of a single, concerted, nettable whole. Should (God forbid) your counterparty have imploded, an unthinking administrator might feel the three-year jet fuel swap you traded in July 2012 had nothing really to do with your six-month interest rate swap from February last year and when it comes to considering who owes who what, the two should be treated as separate, unitary transactions. It might think this quite enthusiastically, if one of those transactions happens out-of-the-money to you, and the other one in-the-money.  


“Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure<ref>Yes I know: Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. We’ll get to that. And in some jurisdictions mandatory [[insolvency set-off]] would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.</ref> and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”
“Why, that’s dashed bad luck, old man! You have to pay me that out-of-the-money exposure<ref>Yes I know: Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. We’ll get to that. And in some jurisdictions mandatory [[insolvency set-off]] would also spike an administrator’s guns. But for now, let’s say.</ref> and while this dead parrot owes you on the other trade, the end of the creditors’ queue is that one you can see over there in the far distance, should you have a telescope on you.”