eqd-31 & eqd-32

[etaim]

In the 4.8 specifications, EQD-31 states: “The starting date of an equity option must be [b]after[/b] the trade date”, but in the XPath Description, it uses [b]ge[/b] comparison, which means the dates can also be the same. Which is the right one? The exact same question applies to EQD-32. Thanks, Etai

[iyermakova]

Hello Etai, Thank you for bring to our attention the discrepancy in their English vs XPath Descriptions within the eqd-31-32 rules. After consulting ISDA Legal and FpML Eqd and Val Working Groups, there was agreement that the term Effective Date only makes sense if it used strictly for a forward starting option, otherwise the effective date has no economic significance in equity options. An explicit forward effective date only makes sense if the strike remains undetermined at tradeDate. As a result, eqd-31-32 rules will be amended to say: English Description: “If equityEffectiveDate exists, then the equityEffectiveDate date of an equity option must be strictly after the trade date.” XPath Description: EquityDerivativeBase)[exists(equityEffectiveDate)] satisfies $equityDerivativeBase/equityEffectiveDate gt tradeHeader/tradeDate Thank you, Irina Yermakova

[Author]

Posts