Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Non-Reliance: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Non-Reliance - ISDA Provision|Also]], for good order, in not so many words and for no compelling reason, reproduced in Article {{eqderivprov|13.1}} of the {{eqderivdefs}}. | [[Non-Reliance - ISDA Provision|Also]], for good order, in not so many words and for no compelling reason, reproduced in Article {{eqderivprov|13.1}} of the {{eqderivdefs}}. | ||
You might ask why this representation wasn’t included somehow in Section 3 of the {{isdama}}, along with all the other Representations. Perhaps it was an afterthought — though it is hard to udnerstand if so why it made it to the pre-printed schedule. | |||
In any case, the contents of this representation are throroughly uncontroversial: it is designed purely to head off mendacious, buyer’s remorse-inflected regrets at having participated in a transaction in which one has lost money. | |||
The deal is that [[swap dealer]]s, sitting as they do on the public side of the great wall of information barriers that runs down the middle of an investment bank, owe no fiuciary obligations<ref>This rule is progressively honoured in the regulatory breach, by the way, with things like best execution, but it remains the operating theory.</ref> and give no advice and operate at arm’s length — so this is really just a fancy way of saying BUYER BEWARE. If you want ''advice'', go see an investment adviser. | |||
Latest revision as of 09:10, 9 February 2023
Also, for good order, in not so many words and for no compelling reason, reproduced in Article 13.1 of the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions.
You might ask why this representation wasn’t included somehow in Section 3 of the ISDA Master Agreement, along with all the other Representations. Perhaps it was an afterthought — though it is hard to udnerstand if so why it made it to the pre-printed schedule.
In any case, the contents of this representation are throroughly uncontroversial: it is designed purely to head off mendacious, buyer’s remorse-inflected regrets at having participated in a transaction in which one has lost money.
The deal is that swap dealers, sitting as they do on the public side of the great wall of information barriers that runs down the middle of an investment bank, owe no fiuciary obligations[1] and give no advice and operate at arm’s length — so this is really just a fancy way of saying BUYER BEWARE. If you want advice, go see an investment adviser.
- ↑ This rule is progressively honoured in the regulatory breach, by the way, with things like best execution, but it remains the operating theory.