Latest Posts

cd-24 has a redundant clause. It is not necessary to include “protectionTerms/creditEvents” in addition to “protectionTerms/creditEvents/creditEventNotice”. The rule today: ” cd-24 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm The following elements must be present: protectionTerms/creditEvents, protectionTerms/creditEvents/creditEventNotice, protectionTerms/obligations, generalTerms/referenceInformation/referencePrice. ” My proposed solution is to remove the redundant check. This would make the rule: ” cd-24 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm The … Continued

The valid exmaples cd-23-03.xml does not trigger ruled cd-23. The problem is the example contains a contractual matrix. The exmaple: ” ISDA1999Credit ISDA1999CreditSuccessorAndCreditEvents ISDA1999CreditConvertibleExchangeableAccretingObligations CreditDerivativesPhysicalSettlementMatrix 2005-03-07Z NorthAmericanCorporate ” Precondition: LongForm (context: Trade) (context: Contract) documentation/masterConfirmation and documentation/contractualMatrix are not present and SingleName precondition applies. As the contract is a shortForm it is causing rules cd-21 … Continued

The valid validation rule example valid-cd-23-02.xml is out of context for rule cd-23. cd-23 today is: ” Context: CreditDefaultSwap (complex type) cd-23 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm cashSettlementTerms or physicalSettlementTerms must be present. ” The LongForm ‘precondition’ is: ” Precondition: LongForm (context: Trade) (context: Contract) documentation/masterConfirmation and documentation/contractualMatrix are not present and SingleName precondition applies. ” The … Continued

The valid test cases valid-cd-22-01.xml does not meet the precondition shortfForm required for cd-22. The test for Short Form is: ” Precondition: ShortForm (context: Trade) (context: Contract) documentation/masterConfirmation exists or documentation/contractualMatrix exists or documentation/contractualTermsSupplement exists and begins with substring iTraxx or CDX. ” In Xpath this is: exists(//documentation[masterConfirmation|contractualMatrix|contractualTermsSupplement[matches (type, “^(iTraxx|CDX)”)]]) The document contains: documentation Comment … Continued

cd-20 refers to an element that doesn’t exist. I suspect the element name is mis-spelt. The element should be “obligations” rather than “obligation”. The rule today: ” cd-20 (Mandatory) Preconditions: ISDA2003 protectionTerms/obligation/notContingent must not be present. ” The proposed correction: ” cd-20 (Mandatory) Preconditions: ISDA2003 protectionTerms/obligations/notContingent must not be present. “

Example invalid-cd-19-07.xml triggers rule cd-40 because it has a modifiedEquityDelivery but no indexReferenceInformation/tranche cd-40 today: ” Context: GeneralTerms (complex type) cd-40 (Mandatory) If indexReferenceInformation/tranche is not present then modifiedEquityDelivery must not be present. ” The content of invalid-cd-19-07.xml is below: 2002-12-05Z NONE 2007-12-05Z MODFOLLOWING GBLO USNY JPTO MODFOLLOWING GBLO USNY JPTO Aiful Corporation 008FAQ JP310504B117 … Continued

Validation Rule cd-15 has a test termed “occurs”. The rule today: ” Context: CreditDefaultSwap (complex type) cd-15 (Mandatory) If there is exactly one generalTerms/referenceInformation/referenceObligation, and cashSettlementTerms/valuationDate/singleValuationDate occurs, then the value of cashSettlementTerms/valuationMethod must be Market or Highest. ” With my experience I believe what is meant is to test for existence – say a test … Continued

The validation rule valid example valid-cd-11-01.xml does not exercise the validation rule cd-11. The example does not meet the ISDA 2003 precondition for the rule. Therefore the rule is not exercised by the example. The rule today is: ” cd-11 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm ISDA2003 allGuarantees must be present. ” The examples documentation section is: ISDA1992 … Continued

The context for evaluating cd-8 is too high up in the document. The rule today is: ” Context: GeneralTerms (complex type) cd-8 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/eAdjustments or scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/dateAdjustmentsReference must be present. ” The rule could be rewritten with a more specific context: ” Context: //element(*, GeneralTerms)/scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate cd-8 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm dateAdjustments or dateAdjustmentsReference must exist. … Continued

cd-8 references an element that does not exist. The element is //eAdjustments. The rule today is: ” cd-8 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/eAdjustments or scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/dateAdjustmentsReference must be present. ” Based on my experience I suspect this might be a mistyping of dateAdjustments. The corrected rule would be: ” cd-8 (Mandatory) Preconditions: LongForm scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/dateAdjustments or scheduledTerminationDate/adjustableDate/dateAdjustmentsReference must … Continued