Fish or cut bait: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
And so was born the “[[fish or cut bait]]” [[negotiation]] gambit. This is to say, “all right, have your stupid [[NAV trigger]] ''but'' if it happens — it won’t, of course, but for the purposes of argument let’s just say it did — ''be prepared to put your money where your mouth is''. You have a month, soldier: shoot, or put your gun away. For ''good''.” | And so was born the “[[fish or cut bait]]” [[negotiation]] gambit. This is to say, “all right, have your stupid [[NAV trigger]] ''but'' if it happens — it won’t, of course, but for the purposes of argument let’s just say it did — ''be prepared to put your money where your mouth is''. You have a month, soldier: shoot, or put your gun away. For ''good''.” | ||
Quietly, [[Credit officer|risk officers]] quite ''like'' the idea of a silent, festering | Quietly, [[Credit officer|risk officers]] quite ''like'' the idea of a silent, festering trigger they can pull at any later stage should something unmentionable happen and there isn’t a better alternative. But carry on. Say, “look, I don’t want a Sword of Damocles hanging indefinitely over my head. If I am in the shtook, fair enough, put me out of my misery, but at least be prompt about it. And look — if I do make it to the end of the period without blowing up, can’t we assume I will be out of the woods?” | ||
Now we know a [[credit officer]]’s lot is not a happy one. She has wound up working in credit, for one thing: that can hardly have been the plan. Plus, she is generally overworked, under-appreciated, under-resourced and, by natural disposition, beset by existential doubts — that is in large part why she became a credit officer in the first place. She will say a [[fish or cut bait]] clause makes her life ''harder'': the cut-off time is inevitably arbitrary (true — but isn’t ''life'' arbitrary?); what counts as an {{isdaprov|ATE}} is often ambiguous (''was'' it an [[ATE]]? ''Did'' they exceed the {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}?) and in any weather, it is hard to calculate (is it 30 days from the actual event, or when you ''knew'' of the event, or when you ''ought reasonably to have known'' about it, and so on). | Now we know a [[credit officer]]’s lot is not a happy one. She has wound up working in credit, for one thing: that can hardly have been the plan. Plus, she is generally overworked, under-appreciated, under-resourced and, by natural disposition, beset by existential doubts — that is in large part why she became a credit officer in the first place. She will say a [[fish or cut bait]] clause makes her life ''harder'': the cut-off time is inevitably arbitrary (true — but isn’t ''life'' arbitrary?); what counts as an {{isdaprov|ATE}} is often ambiguous (''was'' it an [[ATE]]? ''Did'' they exceed the {{isdaprov|Threshold Amount}}?) and in any weather, it is hard to calculate (is it 30 days from the actual event, or when you ''knew'' of the event, or when you ''ought reasonably to have known'' about it, and so on). | ||