Template:M summ Equity Derivatives Trade Features: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.41}} ===
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.41}} ===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.41}}
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.41}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.42}} ===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.42}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.43}} ===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.43}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.44}} and {{eqderivprov|1.45}} {{eqderivprov|Knock-in/out Event}}===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.45}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.46}} and {{eqderivprov|1.47}} {{eqderivprov|Knock-in/out Reference Security}}===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.46}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.48}} and {{eqderivprov|1.49}} {{eqderivprov|Knock-in/out Determination Day}}===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.48}}
===Section {{eqderivprov|1.50}} and {{eqderivprov|1.51}} {{eqderivprov|Knock-in/out Valuation Time}}===
{{M summ Equity Derivatives 1.50}}

Latest revision as of 08:41, 19 May 2022

Section 1.38

This is your classic equity derivative: given that much of the point of equity swaps is to invest synthetically in securities you either don’t want to, or cannot, own physically — or instruments like indices that you can’t own.

Section 1.39

Just a brief irked note to ask whether, without obviously mocking the entire process, one could have created a more tortured way of explaining that “physically-settled” means, you know, physically-settled?

Not only is was this poor semantic concept unfairly harassed by ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ as it went about its peaceable business, but it was then taken in to the cells and tortured, too. Mean.

Section 1.40

The Determining Party only ever has to determine a Cancellation Amount, Cancellation and Payment or Partial Cancellation and Payment under 12.8, and that will only happen in only when a Transaction terminates following an Extraordinary Event or an Additional Disruption Event.

Calculation Agent vs. Determining Party

Why: The Equity Derivatives recognise that while most calculations could be performed by whoever is appointed Calculation Agent, determination of a Cancellation Amount is inextricably related to the hedge and — especially where there is a disrupted market – this is best to be calculated by the one whose problem it is to unwind that hedge: namely, the Hedging Party.

In theory (though almost never in practice)[1] the Hedging Party might not be the Calculation Agent.

In theory, too, the Hedging Party might not be named the Determining Party. Which is kind of awkward, since the Cancellation Amount is couched in terms of the cost to the determining Party of unwinding, liquidating or re-establishing its hedge — which it would only do if it was, like, hedging.

Lastly, note that if your investment bank is as left-handedly configured as some the JC has come across,[2] the group entity writing the equity swaps might not be the same as the one doing the physical hedging of those swap obligations (with a back-to-back trade between them, for example), so the Hedging Party/Determining Party might not be either party to the actual ISDA Master Agreement at all.

The User’s Guide

We have noted elsewhere that the User’s Guide is less forthcoming than one might like it to be on what the Determining Party is for, and when (or why) there might ever be two. But it does say this:

“In calculating a Cancellation Amount, a Determining Party is required to act in good faith and to use commercially reasonable procedures. It should be noted that quotations are not necessarily required, as depending on the Transaction in question, the cost of liquidating hedges may be a more appropriate basis for determining a Cancellation Amount than soliciting quotations.[3]

Parties should note that the Determining Party is the party that will be calculating its own cost of replacing or providing the economic equivalent of a terminated Transaction. The Calculation Agent may be a party to the Transaction, but when performing its duties as Calculation Agent it is acting as a neutral party. The Calculation Agent as such will not have a replacement cost or economic equivalent and therefore should not be designated as the Determining Party.[4]

If this is meant to help, it singularly fails to, except to recognise that the Determining Party is acting in its capacity as a Hedging Party, and not in its gnomic, wise, dispassionate role as impartial determiner of abstract values. This explains, maybe, why ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ thought it worthwhile to have distinct roles of Calculation Agent and Determining Party — it is not saying (as far as we can tell) that the party who is Calculation Agent cannot be Determining Party at all, but only that when it is being a Determining Party it is not being Calculation Agent: the two roles wear different trousers, so to speak.

But what it does confirm is that the Determining Party is meant to refer to the person who is actually hedging the trade, and that what they will be doing is liquidating hedges to get prices.

Section 1.41

Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 1.41

  1. If Calculation Agent == Dealer, and Dealer == Hedging Party, and Hedging Party == Determining Party, then Calculation Agent == Determining Party.
  2. AND WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS.
  3. May be”. You think?
  4. Emphasis added.