82,891
edits
Accession: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
For those fund managers not wedded to the idea of some kind of spooky quantum entanglement — and many are — the idea of accession can relief the suffering of their [[documentation unit]].<ref>And those of their myriad brokers.</ref> This is simply to create a single set of master documents to which all funds, brokers and counterparties can “accede”, and agree to be bound by as they are from time to time amended, perhaps by countersignature for good order. This keeps the ongoing paper war at a minimum. | For those fund managers not wedded to the idea of some kind of spooky quantum entanglement — and many are — the idea of accession can relief the suffering of their [[documentation unit]].<ref>And those of their myriad brokers.</ref> This is simply to create a single set of master documents to which all funds, brokers and counterparties can “accede”, and agree to be bound by as they are from time to time amended, perhaps by countersignature for good order. This keeps the ongoing paper war at a minimum. | ||
Nonetheless, the attractions of accession still seems to elude people in the industry whom you might think would know better. For, them the JC has devised the following analogy: imagine you are in the restaurant scene from ''When Harry Met Sally'', and your contract is the menu. To | Nonetheless, the attractions of accession still seems to elude people in the industry whom you might think would know better. For, them the JC has devised the following analogy: imagine you are in the restaurant scene from ''When Harry Met Sally'', and your contract is the menu. To “accede” to a contract is to say “I’ll have what ''she’s'' having”. | ||
{{ref}} | |||