Template:Calculation agent dispute: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*Thirdly, because we delta-one]] hedge, we come up with our {{eqderivprov|Determination Agent}} “determination” by actually selling the right number of shares. It isn’t like we confect some hypothetical valuation based on a model some geek in correlation trading built in [[excel]]. We don't go ask some stooge dealers for a soft estimate, and promise them champagne in the mail. We ''actually sell the stock''. Our own money out the door. We can't get it back. What you are asking is to second guess that actual transaction by ''you'' being able to appoint some stooge dealer for a soft estimate. | *Thirdly, because we delta-one]] hedge, we come up with our {{eqderivprov|Determination Agent}} “determination” by actually selling the right number of shares. It isn’t like we confect some hypothetical valuation based on a model some geek in correlation trading built in [[excel]]. We don't go ask some stooge dealers for a soft estimate, and promise them champagne in the mail. We ''actually sell the stock''. Our own money out the door. We can't get it back. What you are asking is to second guess that actual transaction by ''you'' being able to appoint some stooge dealer for a soft estimate. | ||
*Fourthly, there are a ton of controls on us already, contractual, regulatory and economic: | *Fourthly, there are a ton of controls on us already, contractual, regulatory and economic: | ||
**'''Contractual''': Section {{eqderivprov|12.8}} of the {{eqderiv}} (especially Sections {{eqderivprov|12.8(b)}} and {{eqderivprov|12.8(g)}}) is shot through with requirements to act in a [[commercially reasonable manner]], using {{eqderivprov|commercially reasonable procedures}}, going out to leading dealers and so on. Likewise, a whenever a {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}} is acts or exercises judgment in any way, it must do so in [[good faith]] and in a [[commercially reasonable manner]] (See Section {{eqderivprov|1.40}}). What the dispute provision is aimed to do, your adversary will say, is provide a stick to ''enforce'' that obligation. | **'''Contractual''': Section {{eqderivprov|12.8}} of the {{eqderiv}} (especially Sections {{eqderivprov|12.8(b)}} and {{eqderivprov|12.8(g)}}) is shot through with requirements to act in a [[commercially reasonable manner]], using {{eqderivprov|commercially reasonable procedures}}, going out to leading dealers and so on. Likewise, a whenever a {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}} is acts or exercises judgment in any way, it must do so in [[good faith]] and in a [[commercially reasonable manner]] (See Section {{eqderivprov|1.40}}). What the dispute provision is aimed to do, your adversary will say, is provide a stick to ''enforce'' that obligation. but at some point this becomes an infinite regression: what if the dispute is not registered in good faith? Where is the stick to enforce ''that''? | ||
**'''Regulatory''': There's the best execution obligation. The COBS rules require us to treat our clients fairly. | **'''Regulatory''': There's the best execution obligation. The COBS rules require us to treat our clients fairly. | ||
**'''Economic''': You are the ''[[client]]''. You can pull your business. You can decide to never give us another trade. Seeing as we are [[delta-one]] hedged, we have no incentive at all to lowball, and every incentive to give you the best price we can manage. | **'''Economic''': You are the ''[[client]]''. You can pull your business. You can decide to never give us another trade. Seeing as we are [[delta-one]] hedged, we have no incentive at all to lowball, and every incentive to give you the best price we can manage. |
Revision as of 14:20, 13 April 2017
Should you include a dispute right for determinations made by the calculation agent?
Recognising that “should you?”, and “will you have to?”, are different questions — truculent buyside counsel may insist, using illegitimate oratorial techniques, and you may ultimately decided not to die in a ditch about it, however much it pains you — recognising all that; here — if you are doing synthetic equity prime brokerage business — is how it rolls.
Client’s lawyer: we must have a dispute right so help me.
- The Dealer will be the Calculation Agent. (True.)
- The Dealer will be the Hedging Party. (True.)
- The Dealer will be the Determining Party. (True.)
- Dealers are bad, venal people. They have blackened hearts and will stop at nothing to rip their clients’ faces off. We need some check on their unfettered and sure-to-be outrageously exercised discretion. (A matter of debate and, to be sure, recent history has not looked kindly on the goings on in some dealers, but if that’s your starting point a far better question is “why are you doing business with such a vassal in the first place”?)
The Dealer’s lawyer: Look, dudes you seem to be missing the point.
- Firstly, This is synthetic prime brokerage. It isn't an arm’s length trading arrangement. It is business facilitation for you. When we hedge, we are delta neutral. That means if our hedge pays 50, we pay you 50. So firstly, we can’t rip your face off.
- Secondly, we are owe you best execution[1]
- Thirdly, because we delta-one]] hedge, we come up with our Determination Agent “determination” by actually selling the right number of shares. It isn’t like we confect some hypothetical valuation based on a model some geek in correlation trading built in excel. We don't go ask some stooge dealers for a soft estimate, and promise them champagne in the mail. We actually sell the stock. Our own money out the door. We can't get it back. What you are asking is to second guess that actual transaction by you being able to appoint some stooge dealer for a soft estimate.
- Fourthly, there are a ton of controls on us already, contractual, regulatory and economic:
- Contractual: Section 12.8 of the Equity Derivatives (especially Sections 12.8(b) and 12.8(g)) is shot through with requirements to act in a commercially reasonable manner, using commercially reasonable procedures, going out to leading dealers and so on. Likewise, a whenever a Calculation Agent is acts or exercises judgment in any way, it must do so in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner (See Section 1.40). What the dispute provision is aimed to do, your adversary will say, is provide a stick to enforce that obligation. but at some point this becomes an infinite regression: what if the dispute is not registered in good faith? Where is the stick to enforce that?
- Regulatory: There's the best execution obligation. The COBS rules require us to treat our clients fairly.
- Economic: You are the client. You can pull your business. You can decide to never give us another trade. Seeing as we are delta-one hedged, we have no incentive at all to lowball, and every incentive to give you the best price we can manage.
- ↑ Admittedly this only holds if the Dealer does owe best execution, but if it is MiFID-regulated and you are a professional client, it will.