82,891
edits
Agency problem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|design| | {{a|design| | ||
[[File:Secret agent problem.png|450px|thumb|center|A special agent’s problem, yesterday]] | |||
}}The [[agency problem]] addresses the intrinsic [[conflict of interest]] any [[agent]] working on a [[commission]] faces — any [[introducing broker]], [[broker/dealer]], [[asset manager]], [[architect]], building contractor — and that is that once it have received its [[commission]], it doesn’t really care a hill of beans what its [[principal]] gets, however much it might protest to the contrary. In a sense, this is a basic articulation of the [[prisoner’s dilemma]] and so shouldn’t surprise anyone — and ''should'' be cured by repeat interactions — your clients have memories and will remember when you ripped them off. | [[File:Secret agent problem.png|450px|thumb|center|A special agent’s problem, yesterday]]}}The [[agency problem]] addresses the intrinsic [[conflict of interest]] any [[agent]] working on a [[commission]] faces — any [[introducing broker]], [[broker/dealer]], [[asset manager]], [[architect]], building contractor — and that is that once it have received its [[commission]], it doesn’t really care a hill of beans what its [[principal]] gets, however much it might protest to the contrary. In a sense, this is a basic articulation of the [[prisoner’s dilemma]] and so shouldn’t surprise anyone — and ''should'' be cured by repeat interactions — your clients have memories and will remember when you ripped them off. | ||
But the [[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]] has a couple of natural limits. One is that it relies on repeated interactions with an indeterminate end. When the sky is falling on your head, it looks like a final interaction, and the calculus is different. Second, it takes no account of [[convexity]] effects. I can build up my reputation incrementally with thousands of small transactions — I can look like a five-star collaborator — only to blow it on one big position and defect. When that one outsized reward more than compensates for all the pennies in front of the steamroller, the normal rules don’t apply and an iterated game of prisoner’s dilemma becomes a one-off. This is what {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} calls the “Rubin Trade”. | But the [[iterated prisoner’s dilemma]] has a couple of natural limits. One is that it relies on repeated interactions with an indeterminate end. When the sky is falling on your head, it looks like a final interaction, and the calculus is different. Second, it takes no account of [[convexity]] effects. I can build up my reputation incrementally with thousands of small transactions — I can look like a five-star collaborator — only to blow it on one big position and defect. When that one outsized reward more than compensates for all the pennies in front of the steamroller, the normal rules don’t apply and an iterated game of prisoner’s dilemma becomes a one-off. This is what {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} calls the “Rubin Trade”. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
This puts our old friend the [[drills and holes]] conundrum into perspective: it is true that a corporation desires quick, cheap and effective legal services. In many cases, it does not need ''any'' legal services ''at all'' — it could do not just with legal protections delivered in a convenient format and by a less expensive source, but ''no legal protections at all''. What percentage of legal agreements are ever litigated? But it is hard for an inanimate pile of papers filed at companies registry to have that sort of insight. It relies on its agents to arrive at that conclusion on its behalf. But who, amongst the byzantine control structure that those very agents have constructed to help it make decisions of that sort — its [[inhouse counsel]], [[outhouse counsel]], credit risk management, document [[negotiators]], client [[onboarding]] team, [[compliance]] or [[internal audit]] — who of these people would ever say that? And even if one did, would {{sex|he}} not be shut down by the consensus of the others?<ref>Those who don’t believe me should try proposing that you don’t need [[cross default]] in trading agreements. You will get bilateral consensus on this, in private conversations, from almost everyone; no-one will say it in public.</ref> | This puts our old friend the [[drills and holes]] conundrum into perspective: it is true that a corporation desires quick, cheap and effective legal services. In many cases, it does not need ''any'' legal services ''at all'' — it could do not just with legal protections delivered in a convenient format and by a less expensive source, but ''no legal protections at all''. What percentage of legal agreements are ever litigated? But it is hard for an inanimate pile of papers filed at companies registry to have that sort of insight. It relies on its agents to arrive at that conclusion on its behalf. But who, amongst the byzantine control structure that those very agents have constructed to help it make decisions of that sort — its [[inhouse counsel]], [[outhouse counsel]], credit risk management, document [[negotiators]], client [[onboarding]] team, [[compliance]] or [[internal audit]] — who of these people would ever say that? And even if one did, would {{sex|he}} not be shut down by the consensus of the others?<ref>Those who don’t believe me should try proposing that you don’t need [[cross default]] in trading agreements. You will get bilateral consensus on this, in private conversations, from almost everyone; no-one will say it in public.</ref> | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||