Template:Dealer polls after LBIE v AGFP: Difference between revisions

Template:Dealer polls after LBIE v AGFP (view source)

1,170 bytes added , 21 April 2023

no edit summary

83,547

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Crane J notes, somewhat drily: “This raises the concern that LBIE’s goal, with respect to the indicative bids, was to make these trades seem as worthless as possible to then be able to collect the most from Assured in a lawsuit.”
+So here are some things to bear in mind before reaching for a dealer poll to unblock a negotiation that is stuck on valuation:
+Firstly, at the point you are likely to be arguing about it, everyone’s hair — yours, the counterparty’s ''and the rest of the market’s'' — hair will be on fire. Prices will be yoyoing around and most people will be focussed on their own book and won’t care about yours. Imagine your reference dealer is sitting on one of those mechanical bucking broncos. At the moment you ask for a firm [[Bid price|bid]] on your portfolio — that, by the way, you don’t intend to [[Bid and offer|hit]] — someone switched the bronco on full.
+Secondly, since there is nothing to be gained from providing a price — you are seeking price discovery, not actually looking to trade, remember — no dealer in its right mind will give you one. Best case scenario it is distracted from managing its own book. Less edifying ones are that it could get called as a witness in the litigation that is bound to follow or, God forbid, joined as a defendant in it. All your incautious bloomies are suddenly discoverable before an unsympathetic court.