83,357
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In which JC ventures forth, | In which JC ventures forth, unbidden, onto the topic of ''what makes a good ISDA''. Mainly the same things that make any good commercial contract, but ISDA is what we know so we will go with it. | ||
The pre-printed Master Agreement | The pre-printed Master Agreement being what it is — a stone tablet hewn, so conventional wisdom has it, from holy granite so as to ''avoid'' controversy — when we talk about the “qualities of a good ISDA” it goes without saying “the sacred fourteen” are already immaculate: we mean of course a good ISDA ''{{isdaprov|Schedule}}''. It is toiling over that, grubby mortal appendix — a crazed shadow thrown by guttering light across the far wall of Plato's cave —that you will live out your days.<Ref>What is the difference between a schedule, an appendix and an annex?</ref> | ||
A scan of the sub-headings | A scan of the sub-headings below will betray JCs view of it: an ISDA should have five basic qualities: ''fairness'', ''clarity'', ''consistency'', ''simplicity'' and aptness to instil ''confidence''. | ||
These qualities interact with and, in large part, depend on each other. They are in symbiosis. | These qualities interact with and, in large part, depend on each other. They are in symbiosis. | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{Quote|“There could be no negotiating with terrorists.” | {{Quote|“There could be no negotiating with terrorists.” | ||
:—Attributed to Richard Nixon}} | :—Attributed to Richard Nixon}} | ||
{{Drop|[[Qualities of a good ISDA|F]]|airness as an}} abstract quality seems like one of those lip-servicey, all-very-well-in-theory ideas that got you good grades in that [[alternative dispute resolution]] module but is sure to ship a haymaker to the jaw on first contact with | {{Drop|[[Qualities of a good ISDA|F]]|airness as an}} abstract quality seems like one of those lip-servicey, all-very-well-in-theory ideas that got you good grades in that [[alternative dispute resolution]] module but is sure to ship a haymaker to the jaw on first contact with commercial reality. We treat a negotiation as some kind of trench warfare: as if we face a mortal enemy and not a customer. It is true that our customers tend to be similarly disposed — ''fairness'' never gets a chance to break out. | ||
But this is no [[single round prisoner’s dilemma]]. To show fairness is not to show weakness, but ''strength''. | But this is no [[single round prisoner’s dilemma]]. To show fairness is not to show weakness, but ''strength''. |