Template:Multiple Transaction Payment Netting: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "===Multiple Transaction Payment Netting=== “'''{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}'''” is a defined term introduced in the {{2002ma}} in place of the more cl...")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
===Multiple Transaction Payment Netting===
===Multiple Transaction Payment Netting===
“'''{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}'''” is a defined term introduced in the {{2002ma}} in place of the more clunky {{1992isda}} language set out in Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}}.  
“'''{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}'''” is a defined term introduced in the {{2002ma}} in place of the more clunky {{1992isda}} language set out in Section {{isda92prov|2(c)}}.  


In the {{1992isda}}, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must '''disapply''' Section {{isdaprov|2(c)(ii)}}. Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies ''in respect of the same {{isdaprov|Transaction}}'').  
In the {{1992isda}}, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must '''disapply''' Section {{isda92prov|2(c)(ii)}}. Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies ''in respect of the same {{isdaprov|Transaction}}'').  


That is partly why, in the {{2002isda}} they introduced the more intuitive {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} concept. So now you can say “{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} does (or does not) apply”.
That is partly why, in the {{2002isda}} they introduced the more intuitive {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} concept. So now you can say “{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} does (or does not) apply”.


Of course, the one person who is going to have ''no'' clue about how transaction netting works at an operational level is [[negotiator]] expected to thrash this out in the doc.  
Of course, the one person who is going to have ''no'' clue — or, for that matter, care — about how transaction netting works at an operational level is [[negotiator]] expected to thrash this out in the document.  


Now, seeing as (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t ''need'' to be in the contract, and your [[negotiator]] will care not one row of buttons whether or not {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} applies or not, you might think it wise to put something diffident like “''The parties will agree any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter''.”
Now, seeing as (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t ''need'' to be in the contract, and your [[negotiator]] will care not one row of buttons whether or not {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}, or its 1992 predecessor, applies or not, you might think it wise to put something diffident like “''The parties will agree to any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter''.”
 
I know, I know: I’m a total Mr. Buzzkill. But look, it’s for the good of your own long-term mental health.

Revision as of 22:47, 27 March 2020

Multiple Transaction Payment Netting

Multiple Transaction Payment Netting” is a defined term introduced in the 2002 ISDA in place of the more clunky 1992 ISDA language set out in Section 2(c).

In the 1992 ISDA, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must disapply Section 2(c)(ii). Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies in respect of the same Transaction).

That is partly why, in the 2002 ISDA they introduced the more intuitive Multiple Transaction Payment Netting concept. So now you can say “Multiple Transaction Payment Netting does (or does not) apply”.

Of course, the one person who is going to have no clue — or, for that matter, care — about how transaction netting works at an operational level is negotiator expected to thrash this out in the document.

Now, seeing as (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t need to be in the contract, and your negotiator will care not one row of buttons whether or not Multiple Transaction Payment Netting, or its 1992 predecessor, applies or not, you might think it wise to put something diffident like “The parties will agree to any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter.”

I know, I know: I’m a total Mr. Buzzkill. But look, it’s for the good of your own long-term mental health.