Key person: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}In a gaucher times called a [[key man|key ''man'']], the [[key person]] — or people — are those in a small financial services organisation who provide the brains and nowse. In a [[hedge fund]], | {{g}}In a gaucher times called a [[key man|key ''man'']], the [[key person]] — or people — are those in a small financial services organisation who provide the lion’s share of the brains and nowse. In a [[hedge fund]], this means the two genius ex-[[Goldman]] trading whizz founding partners. | ||
As long as these two chaps — they tend to be chaps, though the revolution is coming — still show up for work for their colossal paycheques, the future of the organisation is relatively assured. Should one of them or, God forbid ''both'', gallivant off to their newly-acquired Caribbean islands to play with their respective collections of racing cars, they will leave behind a bunch of mediocre financial services hacks and bullshit artists with whom neither the fund’s erstwhile clients nor its trading counterparties will any longer wish to do business. | |||
Negotiating a [[key man]] clause can be a fascinating exercise. Here psychology conflicts with normal imperatives of risk management because, while [[key | Hence the “[[key man clause]]”, entitling one to terminate a trading arrangement should the nominated [[key person]]s bugger off. If there is more than one nominated [[key person]] expect complications are around how many of them must leave before the clause can be triggered. Should it be ''all'' of them? ''Any'' of them? A simple majority? | ||
Negotiating a [[key man]] clause can be a fascinating exercise. Here psychology conflicts with normal imperatives of risk management because, while [[key person clause]]s undoubtedly represent an Achilles heel for a [[hedge fund]], they play so egregiously to the principals’ egos that most will be upset the not to be asked for one. There is no better validation of one’s self-worth, after all, than to be told that without your continued personal involvement a training relationship is worthless. | |||
Revision as of 09:03, 26 April 2020
|
In a gaucher times called a key man, the key person — or people — are those in a small financial services organisation who provide the lion’s share of the brains and nowse. In a hedge fund, this means the two genius ex-Goldman trading whizz founding partners.
As long as these two chaps — they tend to be chaps, though the revolution is coming — still show up for work for their colossal paycheques, the future of the organisation is relatively assured. Should one of them or, God forbid both, gallivant off to their newly-acquired Caribbean islands to play with their respective collections of racing cars, they will leave behind a bunch of mediocre financial services hacks and bullshit artists with whom neither the fund’s erstwhile clients nor its trading counterparties will any longer wish to do business.
Hence the “key man clause”, entitling one to terminate a trading arrangement should the nominated key persons bugger off. If there is more than one nominated key person expect complications are around how many of them must leave before the clause can be triggered. Should it be all of them? Any of them? A simple majority?
Negotiating a key man clause can be a fascinating exercise. Here psychology conflicts with normal imperatives of risk management because, while key person clauses undoubtedly represent an Achilles heel for a hedge fund, they play so egregiously to the principals’ egos that most will be upset the not to be asked for one. There is no better validation of one’s self-worth, after all, than to be told that without your continued personal involvement a training relationship is worthless.