The Jolly Contrarian

Template:M intro work What will It look like: Difference between revisions

Template Discussion

Template:M intro work What will It look like (view source)

Revision as of 14:40, 14 July 2023

1,119 bytes added ,  14 July 2023
no edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The [[head of documentation]] at a broker I once knew<ref>Names and dates have been changed to protect my reputation.</ref> was offered free internal consulting time, ostensibly, to workshop what kinds of technology could be applied to her operation to enhance and streamline the documentation and onboarding process.
The [[head of documentation]] at a broker I once knew<ref>Names and dates have been changed to protect my reputation.</ref> was offered free internal consulting time, ostensibly, to workshop what kinds of technology could be applied to her operation to enhance and streamline the documentation and onboarding process.


(Onboarding is a perennial thorn in the paw of any good-sized financial institution. It takes forever, is incredibly fiddly, covers many basic risks, but is regarded as a dead weight amongst revenue generating staff: a four-month period that essentially retards the basis business of making money.)
(Onboarding is a perennial thorn in the paw of any good-sized financial institution. It takes forever, is fiddly, covers many basic risks, but the process is regarded as a dead weight amongst revenue generating staff: a four-month period that essentially retards the basis business of making money. The resting attitude of sales towards negotiation teams is basically resentment.)


Free money and resources in a financial services organisation are rare so she leapt at the chance.
Free money and resources in a financial services organisation are rare, so she leapt at the chance.


The formal business of documenting master trading arrangements across a full service global broker is immensely complicated. There are ten basic products, fifteen different counterparty types and over one hundred jurisdictions, so simply maintaining consistent templates is a monstrous business.
Documenting [[Master trading agreement|master trading arrangements]] across all business fronts of a full-service global [[broker/dealer]] is immensely complicated. There are ten basic products, fifteen basic counterparty types and as many as a hundred jurisdictions: just maintaining consistent templates is a monstrous task.


So the docs team head said, “this is great. A robust document assembly application will cut out an enormous amount of work”.
So the [[head of documentation|head of docs]] said, “this is great. A robust [[document assembly]] application will cut out an enormous amount of work.”


The internal consultant said, “perhaps so. But we should test that.”
The internal consultant said, “perhaps so. But we should test that.”
Line 13: Line 13:
What the consultant proposed was this:
What the consultant proposed was this:
===Break down process===
===Break down process===
Divide the onboarding process, as best you can, into its major components. After Referral, KYC and Credit Sanctioning the file would hit the documentation team’s “milestone”. The doc team’s components were something like this:   
Divide your documentation process as best you can, into its major components.  
 
The doc team’s components were something like this:   


# Allocation to a negotiator  
# Allocation to a negotiator  
Line 24: Line 26:
# Compile closing memo containing record of all deviations from pre-approved template
# Compile closing memo containing record of all deviations from pre-approved template
# Send for execution
# Send for execution
# Send executed document for filing and formal logging in firm’srisk systems.
# Send executed document for filing and formal logging in firm’s risk systems.


===Estimate critical path===
===Estimate critical path===
Next three consultant said, okay, for each stage in that process, estimate the fastest possible time you could conceivably carry out that job, assuming you were doing it thoroughly, and all stars were aligned, and everyone on whom the process depends responds promptly and accurately.
Next, the consultant said: okay, “for each stage in that process, estimate the fastest possible time you could conceivably carry out that job, assuming you were doing it thoroughly, and all stars were aligned, and everyone on whom the process depends responds promptly and accurately.”
 
“Then estimate what would would expect the median time for that process, assuming normal operating conditions: normal amounts of confusion, delay, interruption and interpersonal interaction.”


Then estimate what would would expect the median time for that process, assuming normal operating conditions: normal amounts of confusion, delay, interruption and interpersonal interaction.
“Then estimate a realistic ''bad'' outcome for each phase, where things did not go well at all. Not impossibly bad, but “within a range of actual experience” bad.”


Then estimate a realistic ''bad'' outcome for each phase, where things did not go well at all. Not impossibly bad, but “within a range of actual experience” bad. (This could still be pretty bad: one organisation took four years to conclude a basic stock lending agreement between two European affiliates.)


Now, plot these three lines on a chart.


As you can see in each case, there is significant variation. The more requirement for horizontal interaction within the firm to complete the task, the greater the variance — because the negotiator lost effective control of the process.abd where the negotiator had to interact with people outside the firm, she lost total control of the process. Here the variance was greatest. With some clients, the process was resolved in a single round in a couple of days. With others, it could take months or even years.
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%;"
|+ Negotiation critical path (hours passed)
|-
| rowspan = "2" | '''Time''' || colspan="2" |'''Preparation''' || colspan="3"| '''Round 1''' || colspan="3" | '''Round 2''' || colspan="3" |'''Round 3''' || Colspan="3" |'''Finalising''' 
|-
| style="width: 6%|Allocation || style="width: 6%|Credit Terms || style="width: 6%|Draft || style="width: 6%|Send & wait || style="width: 6%|Resolve || style="width: 6%|Redraft || style="width: 6%|Send & wait || style="width: 6%|Resolve || style="width: 6%|Redraft || style="width: 6%|Send & wait || style="width: 6%|Resolve || style="width: 6%|Closing Memo || style="width: 6%|Execution || style="width: 6%|Filing
|-
| style="width: 10%|'''Best case''' || 0.5 || 0 || 1 || 50 || 25 || 0.25 || 40 || 20 || 0.25 || 30 || 15 || 1 || 0.5 || 0.5
|-
| '''Median Case'''|| 1 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 75 || 1.5 || 80 || 50 || 1.5 || 60 || 40 || 2 || 1 || 1
|-
| '''Bad case''' || 2 || 10 || 5 || 300 || 250 || 5 || 250 || 150 || 5 || 150 || 125 || 5 || 2 || 5
|-
|}
Now, plot these three lines on a chart.
{{image|Negotiation critical paths|Jjpg|}}
As you can see in each case, there is significant variation. The more requirement for horizontal interaction within the firm to complete the task, the greater the variance — because the negotiator lost effective control of the process. Where the negotiator had to interact with people ''outside'' the firm, she lost total control of the process. Here the variance was greatest. With some clients, the process was resolved in a single round in a couple of days. With others, it could take months or even years. One organisation took four years to conclude a basic stock lending agreement between two of its own European affiliates.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/76708"