Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.7: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "The calculation of {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}s following {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}s is one of those classic negotiation oubliettes that opposing counsel..." Tag: Replaced |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The calculation of {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}s following {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}s is one of those classic negotiation | The calculation of {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}s following {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}s is one of those classic [[negotiation oubliette]]s that opposing counsel will gladly fall into like Unlucky Alf falling into an open manhole. The [[JC]] has seen storied partners of [[Magic circle law firm|serious law firms]] get in quite the lather about this, from positions of apparent ignorance hotly insisting [[co-calculation agent|co-caclulation agency]] to be a matter of life or death, predicated on the assumption that given half a chance, these venal [[swap dealer]]s won’t break a stride before ripping hunks off their customers’ faces. | ||
This is a wonderful [[narrative]], vouchsafing as it does [[tedious]], remunerative arguments that their clients may believe | This is a wonderful [[narrative]], vouchsafing as it does [[tedious]], remunerative arguments that their clients may indeed believe save them from great peril — but it really need not be that complicated. | ||
First thing: remember the [[commercial imperative]]. As the old saying has it, “he who burns his customer’s shed down, steals his oxen and sells his children into slavery cannot expect to sit at his customer’s annual broker review without the subject coming up”. | |||
Revision as of 11:35, 21 January 2022
The calculation of Cancellation Amounts following Extraordinary Events is one of those classic negotiation oubliettes that opposing counsel will gladly fall into like Unlucky Alf falling into an open manhole. The JC has seen storied partners of serious law firms get in quite the lather about this, from positions of apparent ignorance hotly insisting co-caclulation agency to be a matter of life or death, predicated on the assumption that given half a chance, these venal swap dealers won’t break a stride before ripping hunks off their customers’ faces.
This is a wonderful narrative, vouchsafing as it does tedious, remunerative arguments that their clients may indeed believe save them from great peril — but it really need not be that complicated.
First thing: remember the commercial imperative. As the old saying has it, “he who burns his customer’s shed down, steals his oxen and sells his children into slavery cannot expect to sit at his customer’s annual broker review without the subject coming up”.