Downgrading: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The partner’s eyes glittered. It was the fierce gleam of a man envisaging the accrual of enormous professional fees. | The partner’s eyes glittered. It was the fierce gleam of a man envisaging the accrual of enormous professional fees. | ||
I looked at the contract before me rendered on crisp onionskin. It was beautiful — strange — ''alien'' in its ineffable obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “[[Eye-ess-dee-aye]]”. {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}. {{isdaprov|Merger | I looked at the contract before me rendered on crisp onionskin. It was beautiful — strange — ''alien'' in its ineffable obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “[[Eye-ess-dee-aye]]”. {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}. {{isdaprov|Merger Without Assumption}}. {{isdaprov|Netting}}. {{isdaprov|Gross-Up}}. {{isdaprov|Default Under Specified Transaction}}. What could it all mean? | ||
Little did I know haw tediously familiar it would all become. ISDA negotiation moved from massive fee-generative bespoke legal work to inhouse teams, to negotiators, to operatrions clerks, to operations clerks in India. | The notional amount of OTC derivatives traded in 1995<ref>According to BIS Triennial Review, since you are asking. {{google3|BIS|Triennial|Review}}.</ref> was about USD12 trillion. In 2018 it was nudging USD600 trillion<ref>According to [https://www.isda.org/a/9atME/Key-Trends-in-Size-and-Composition-of-OTC-Derivatives-Markets.pdf ISDA].<ref>. | ||
Little did I know haw tediously familiar it would all become. ISDA [[negotiation]] moved from massive fee-generative bespoke legal work to inhouse teams, to negotiators, to operatrions clerks, to operations clerks in India. | |||
Revision as of 09:57, 5 June 2019
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
Downgrading personnel is the process of finding a cheaper unit to do the same job.
When the JC was but a stripling clerk, his senior partner assigned to him the job of reviewing this speculative new contract for an important finance client. This was in about 1995.
“The client will take potentially massive, long-tenor exposures under this new contract,” said he, knoching his pipe out on my head. “Potentially ruinous ones. It is our sacred duty to make sure it is safe! And that means —”
The partner’s eyes glittered. It was the fierce gleam of a man envisaging the accrual of enormous professional fees.
I looked at the contract before me rendered on crisp onionskin. It was beautiful — strange — alien in its ineffable obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “Eye-ess-dee-aye”. Single Agreement. Merger Without Assumption. Netting. Gross-Up. Default Under Specified Transaction. What could it all mean?
The notional amount of OTC derivatives traded in 1995[1] was about USD12 trillion. In 2018 it was nudging USD600 trillion<ref>According to ISDA.<ref>.
Little did I know haw tediously familiar it would all become. ISDA negotiation moved from massive fee-generative bespoke legal work to inhouse teams, to negotiators, to operatrions clerks, to operations clerks in India.
- ↑ According to BIS Triennial Review, since you are asking. Let me Google that for you.