Template:Misrepresentation by agent: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Representations]] by [[agent]]s and [[investment manager]]s=== | ===[[Representations]] by [[agent]]s and [[investment manager]]s=== | ||
Where your client’s obligations under the {{isdama}} are stewarded by an [[agent]] — quite common for an [[investment manager]] trading on behalf of a [[fund]] [[ | Where your client’s obligations under the {{isdama}} are stewarded by an [[agent]] — quite common for an [[investment manager]] trading on behalf of a [[fund]] — a [[broker]] might think about having the [[agent]] represent, on its own behalf, about its role as [[agent]]. It might ask the [[agent]] to do this in the ISDA. The sound of an [[asset manager]] confirming its ongoing authority to bind its [[principal]] gladdens a broker’s heart. A full-throated assertion of its own regulatory authorisation; its continued [[good standing]] with the companies office; the continued involvement of its [[key person]]s in making investment decisions — each is sure to put a jaunt in a [[broker]]’s stride. Its [[Mediocre lawyer|Imaginative counsel]] will doubtless dream up others. | ||
But tarry a while. Firstly, your [[investment manager]] will sign as [[agent]], for the [[client]], not on its own behalf. For many this will be an article of profound faith: they will be at some pains, which they will willingly inflict on you, to avoid the barest hint they are speaking for themselves. “When an [[agent]], ''as'' [[agent]] opens its mouth,” they will tell you, “it becomes its [[principal]] for all purposes that interest the law.” | But tarry a while. Firstly, your [[investment manager]] will sign as [[agent]], for the [[client]], not on its own behalf. For many this will be an article of profound faith: they will be at some pains, which they will willingly inflict on you, to avoid the barest hint they are speaking for themselves. “When an [[agent]], ''as'' [[agent]] opens its mouth,” they will tell you, “it ''becomes'' its [[principal]] for all purposes that interest the law.” | ||
And so it does. As far as the [[Courts of Chancery|courts of chancery]] are concerned, to be an [[agent]] is to be wholly [[transubstantiation|transubstantiated]] ''into the person of | And so it does. As far as the [[Courts of Chancery|courts of chancery]] are concerned, to be an [[agent]] is to be wholly [[transubstantiation|transubstantiated]] ''into the person of one’s [[principal]]''. Transmogrified. It is, for all forensic intents to disappear; one’s ghostly outline may still be there, but it is a chimera: one exists only to be the earthly representation of another. | ||
Which cast a pall over the representations you are being asked to make. | Which cast a pall over the representations you are being asked to make. | ||
Take the one that “the [[principal]] has duly authorised the [[agent]] to act on its behalf”. For the principal to say that, through the person of the very one whose agency is in question, is some kind of [[Möbius loop]]. The very comfort you might draw from what is being said is taken away by the person who is saying it. | |||
Even if the fact of the agency is in no doubt, the statements as to the agent’s character are off base. The agent is speaking for the principal, remember. the [[principal]] is, most likely, ''not'' authorised to provide discretionary investment advice by the FCA. He might retort, through the person of his agent: <br> | |||
:'''Agent (''as'' [[agent]])''': Why would I be authorised by the FCA? I am not advising anyone. In fact, my [[investment manager]] is advising ''me''. Why don’t you ask ''{{sex|her}}''? <br> | |||
:'''Broker''' (''rubbing eyes''): But I ''am'' asking {{sex|her}}. I mean ''you''. | |||
:'''Agent (''as'' [[agent]])''': Who? | |||
:'''Broker''': You! | |||
:'''Agent (''as'' [[agent]])''': Ah, but I am not me, for now, I am my client. | |||
:'''Broker''': But you are here, aren’t you? Can’t I ask you? Can you just be yourself for a moment? | |||
:'''Agent (''as'' [[agent]])''': What? Here? In this ISDA? You must be joking. | |||
Revision as of 18:41, 21 November 2019
Representations by agents and investment managers
Where your client’s obligations under the ISDA Master Agreement are stewarded by an agent — quite common for an investment manager trading on behalf of a fund — a broker might think about having the agent represent, on its own behalf, about its role as agent. It might ask the agent to do this in the ISDA. The sound of an asset manager confirming its ongoing authority to bind its principal gladdens a broker’s heart. A full-throated assertion of its own regulatory authorisation; its continued good standing with the companies office; the continued involvement of its key persons in making investment decisions — each is sure to put a jaunt in a broker’s stride. Its Imaginative counsel will doubtless dream up others.
But tarry a while. Firstly, your investment manager will sign as agent, for the client, not on its own behalf. For many this will be an article of profound faith: they will be at some pains, which they will willingly inflict on you, to avoid the barest hint they are speaking for themselves. “When an agent, as agent opens its mouth,” they will tell you, “it becomes its principal for all purposes that interest the law.”
And so it does. As far as the courts of chancery are concerned, to be an agent is to be wholly transubstantiated into the person of one’s principal. Transmogrified. It is, for all forensic intents to disappear; one’s ghostly outline may still be there, but it is a chimera: one exists only to be the earthly representation of another.
Which cast a pall over the representations you are being asked to make.
Take the one that “the principal has duly authorised the agent to act on its behalf”. For the principal to say that, through the person of the very one whose agency is in question, is some kind of Möbius loop. The very comfort you might draw from what is being said is taken away by the person who is saying it.
Even if the fact of the agency is in no doubt, the statements as to the agent’s character are off base. The agent is speaking for the principal, remember. the principal is, most likely, not authorised to provide discretionary investment advice by the FCA. He might retort, through the person of his agent:
- Agent (as agent): Why would I be authorised by the FCA? I am not advising anyone. In fact, my investment manager is advising me. Why don’t you ask her?
- Broker (rubbing eyes): But I am asking her. I mean you.
- Agent (as agent): Who?
- Broker: You!
- Agent (as agent): Ah, but I am not me, for now, I am my client.
- Broker: But you are here, aren’t you? Can’t I ask you? Can you just be yourself for a moment?
- Agent (as agent): What? Here? In this ISDA? You must be joking.