82,853
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isda92prov|Loss}} is a means of valuing {{isda92prov|Transaction}}s following their {{isda92prov|Early Termination}} under the {{1992isda}}. | {{isda92prov|Loss}} is a means of valuing {{isda92prov|Transaction}}s following their {{isda92prov|Early Termination}} under the {{1992isda}}. | ||
Spoddy point: unlike its alternative {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}}, “{{isda92prov|Loss}}” ''includes'' the “{{isda92prov|Unpaid | Spoddy point: unlike its alternative {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}}, “{{isda92prov|Loss}}” ''includes'' the “{{isda92prov|Unpaid Amounts}}” concept in its definition: | ||
: | :“...{{isda92prov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant {{isda92prov|Early Termination Date}} and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section {{isda92prov|6(e)(i)}}(1) or (3) ''[i.e., either version of {{isdaprov|First Method}}]'' '''{{font colour|green|or}}''' {{isda92prov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A) ''[i.e., {{isdaprov|Second Method}} and {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}]'' applies...” | ||
Note that the green '''{{font colour|green|or}}''' above a deliberately conjunctive or, so the only situation to which it doesn’t apply is where {{isdaprov|Second Method}} ''[[and]]'' {{isdaprov|Loss}} applies. It is truly hard to imagine what must have been going through the head of {{icds}} when it came up with this formulation, if it wasn’t purely to intimidate and ward off [[ISDA ingénues]] — it bears the hallmarks of a preoccupied mind: one going through a messy divorce, midlife crisis or religious revelation of some sort — but it bears repeating that there are some intuitions who still prefer the {{1992ma}}. | |||
{{loss duplication capsule}} | |||