Template:M summ 1992 ISDA Settlement Amount: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{isda92prov|Settlement Amount}} only applies to {{isda92prov|Transaction}} terminations where {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} is the nominated valuation methodology.") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isda92prov|Settlement Amount}} only applies to {{isda92prov|Transaction}} terminations where {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} is the nominated valuation methodology. | {{isda92prov|Settlement Amount}} only applies to {{isda92prov|Transaction}} terminations where {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} is the nominated valuation methodology. In the astoundingly unlikely circumstances<ref>Not remotely unlikely. Almost certain, in fact.</ref> that there is not a {{isda92prov|Reference Market-maker}} on the Lord’s green planet with the time, risk tolerance or general inclination to give you, a competitor, a series of firm quotes on your portfolio that she knows you have no interest in actually hitting — let alone ''four'' of the blighters — that this provision has the effect of converting a {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} into, for all intents and purposes, {{isda92prov|Loss}}, though — and, viewers, it pains me to have to say this because it is so stupid, but I have to because it is true — your measure of {{isda92prov|Loss}} is defined to ''include'' {{isda92prov|Unpaid Amounts}} where you have elected full-blown {{isda92prov|Loss}} in your {{isda92prov|Schedule}}, but {{isda92prov|Loss}} ''excludes'' {{isda92prov|Unpaid Amounts}} if you elected {{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} but wound up at {{isda92prov|Loss}} because, stap me vitals,m you couldn’t get enough quotations from {{isda92prov|Reference Market-makers}} to make up a {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}. | ||
So, if you are a true {{isda92prov|Loss}} person, you don’t have to adjust {{isda92prov|Unpaid Amounts}} because they’re embedded in the definition of {{isda92prov|Loss}}, but if you’re a {{isda92prov|Loss}}-via-a-failed-{{isda92prov|Market Quotation}} person, you have to add/subtract {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} independently. | |||
''But in any case you will wind up at the same number. '' | |||
''This is just some ghastly intellectual game played on we wanton boys and girls by the derivative gods''. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 17 March 2020
Settlement Amount only applies to Transaction terminations where Market Quotation is the nominated valuation methodology. In the astoundingly unlikely circumstances[1] that there is not a Reference Market-maker on the Lord’s green planet with the time, risk tolerance or general inclination to give you, a competitor, a series of firm quotes on your portfolio that she knows you have no interest in actually hitting — let alone four of the blighters — that this provision has the effect of converting a Market Quotation into, for all intents and purposes, Loss, though — and, viewers, it pains me to have to say this because it is so stupid, but I have to because it is true — your measure of Loss is defined to include Unpaid Amounts where you have elected full-blown Loss in your Schedule, but Loss excludes Unpaid Amounts if you elected Market Quotation but wound up at Loss because, stap me vitals,m you couldn’t get enough quotations from Reference Market-makers to make up a Market Quotation.
So, if you are a true Loss person, you don’t have to adjust Unpaid Amounts because they’re embedded in the definition of Loss, but if you’re a Loss-via-a-failed-Market Quotation person, you have to add/subtract Unpaid Amounts independently.
But in any case you will wind up at the same number.
This is just some ghastly intellectual game played on we wanton boys and girls by the derivative gods.
- ↑ Not remotely unlikely. Almost certain, in fact.