Downgrading: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
“The client will take potentially massive, long-tenor exposures under this new contract,” said he, knocking his pipe out on my head. “Potentially ruinous ones. It is our sacred duty to make sure it is safe! And that means —”
“The client will take potentially massive, long-tenor exposures under this new contract,” said he, knocking his pipe out on my head. “Potentially ruinous ones. It is our sacred duty to make sure it is safe! And that means —”


The partner’s eyes glittered: the fierce gleam of eyes belonging a man countenancing enormous professional fees. He held out his hand to me. In his palm: a red pill and a blue pill.
The partner’s eyes glittered.


I regarded the document, and then the pills. The contract was slim, rendered on crisp onionskin. It had a five-part {{isdaprov|Schedule}} at the back.  It was beautiful — strange — ''alien'' in its ineffable obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “[[Eye-ess-dee-aye]]”.  
“Daily [[mark-to-market]] [[variation margin]]?” I offered.<ref>Yes, ''of course'' this is an outrageous lie: I was an [[ISDA ingénue]]; I had not the first clue about [[derivatives]], and certainly nothing so sophisticated as [[credit support]], if it even ''existed'' at the time.</ref>


My mind whirred with the other-worldly concepts: {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}. {{isdaprov|Merger Without Assumption}}. {{isdaprov|Netting}}. {{isdaprov|Gross-Up}}. {{isdaprov|Default Under Specified Transaction}}. ''What could they all mean?'' I didn't know. I didn’t understand. But I knew — I felt it, deep in my fibre. ''I needed to know.''   
“No, boy, no!” he shrieked. “No, no, no!”
 
For a moment I was flummoxed, but then I saw in those black eyes the fierce gleam that comes from countenancing vast professional fees.
 
“Billings!”
 
He held out his hand. In his palm: a red pill and a blue pill.
 
I regarded the document, and then the pills. The contract was slim, rendered on crisp onionskin. It had a five-part {{isdaprov|Schedule}} at the back.  It was beautiful — ineffable — ''alien'' in its obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “[[Eye-ess-dee-aye]]”.
 
Exactly! said he. “A [[Sw-æp]] agreement!”
 
I flipped the pages. My mind whirred with the other-worldly concepts I beheld: {{isdaprov|Single Agreement}}. {{isdaprov|Merger Without Assumption}}. {{isdaprov|Netting}}. {{isdaprov|Gross-Up}}. {{isdaprov|Default Under Specified Transaction}}. ''What could they all mean?'' I didn't know. I didn’t understand. But I knew — I felt it, deep in my fibre. ''I needed to know.''   


I took the red pill.  
I took the red pill.  


And, ladies and gentlemen, that is how we find ourselves looking at each other today, through the vale of tears and resentment we both know as a liquid crystal display. Yes: it ''is'' a matrix, and I ''am'' stuck in here. But, look: don’t you worry about me: I can't bear mawkish sentimentality. I wouldn’t feel sorry for you if the roles were reversed. And, after all, I shall outlive you all.  
And, ladies and gentlemen, that is how we find ourselves looking at each other today, through the vale of tears and resentment we both know as a liquid crystal display. Yes: it ''is'' a matrix, and I ''am'' stuck in here. But, look: don’t worry about me: I can't bear mawkish sentimentality. I wouldn’t feel sorry for you if the roles were reversed. And, after all, I shall outlive you all.  


===What does this all mean?===
===What does this all mean?===
Ok: enough of the cod-philosophical sci-fi. The notional amount of [[OTC]] [[derivatives]] traded  in 1995<ref>According to BIS Triennial Review, since you are asking. {{google3|BIS|Triennial|Review}}.</ref>, when I took my red pill, was roughly USD12 trillion. By 2018 it was nudging USD600 trillion<ref>According to [https://www.isda.org/a/9atME/Key-Trends-in-Size-and-Composition-of-OTC-Derivatives-Markets.pdf ISDA].</ref>. ''Six hundred trillion bucks''.<ref>I know, I know: that is gross notional and not net outstanding exposure. But still.</ref>
Ok: enough of the cod-philosophical sci-fi. The notional amount of [[OTC]] [[derivatives]] traded  in 1995<ref>According to BIS Triennial Review, since you are asking. {{google3|BIS|Triennial|Review}}.</ref>, when I took my red pill, was roughly USD12 trillion. By 2018 it was nudging USD600 trillion<ref>According to [https://www.isda.org/a/9atME/Key-Trends-in-Size-and-Composition-of-OTC-Derivatives-Markets.pdf ISDA].</ref>. ''Six hundred trillion bucks''.<ref>I know, I know: that is gross notional and not net outstanding exposure. But still.</ref>


but in any case, an {{isdama}} was once a rare and special beast. Nowadays it isn't — large institutions negotiate thousands of them every year — so [[management consultant]]s the world over are poring over the ''{{wasteprov|cost}}s'' of [[negotiation]] to see how to bring them down. This means some kind of triage. The [[partner]] flipped it to the [[associate]], to the [[trainee]], to the [[inhouse lawyer]], to the [[ISDA negotiator]], to the operations clerk.
In any case, an {{isdama}} was once a rare and special beast. Nowadays it isn’t — financial institutions negotiate thousands of them every year — and,  for fifteen or twenty years [[management consultant]]s all over the globe have pored over the ''{{wasteprov|cost}}s'' of [[negotiation]] to see how to bring them down. This means some kind of [[triage]]. The [[partner]] flipped it to the [[associate]], to the [[trainee]], to the [[in-house lawyer]], to the [[ISDA negotiator]], to the operations clerk.
 
It has led to the ''{{Wasteprov|great dogma of contract negotiation}}''.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Close-out Netting]]: the [[Red Flag Act]] of finance.
*[[Close-out Netting]]: the [[Red Flag Act]] of finance.
 
*The {{Wasteprov|great dogma of contract negotiation}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 19:57, 10 June 2019

Negotiation Anatomy™

Eye-ess-dee-aye, yesterday.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Downgrading personnel is the process of finding a cheaper unit to do the same job.

Once upon a time

When the JC was but a stripling clerk, his senior partner assigned to him the job of reviewing this speculative new contract for an important finance client. This was in about 1995.

“The client will take potentially massive, long-tenor exposures under this new contract,” said he, knocking his pipe out on my head. “Potentially ruinous ones. It is our sacred duty to make sure it is safe! And that means —”

The partner’s eyes glittered.

“Daily mark-to-market variation margin?” I offered.[1]

“No, boy, no!” he shrieked. “No, no, no!”

For a moment I was flummoxed, but then I saw in those black eyes the fierce gleam that comes from countenancing vast professional fees.

“Billings!”

He held out his hand. In his palm: a red pill and a blue pill.

I regarded the document, and then the pills. The contract was slim, rendered on crisp onionskin. It had a five-part Schedule at the back. It was beautiful — ineffable — alien in its obliqueness. I mouthed its title, printed in block capitals across the front page: “Eye-ess-dee-aye”.

Exactly! said he. “A Sw-æp agreement!”

I flipped the pages. My mind whirred with the other-worldly concepts I beheld: Single Agreement. Merger Without Assumption. Netting. Gross-Up. Default Under Specified Transaction. What could they all mean? I didn't know. I didn’t understand. But I knew — I felt it, deep in my fibre. I needed to know.

I took the red pill.

And, ladies and gentlemen, that is how we find ourselves looking at each other today, through the vale of tears and resentment we both know as a liquid crystal display. Yes: it is a matrix, and I am stuck in here. But, look: don’t worry about me: I can't bear mawkish sentimentality. I wouldn’t feel sorry for you if the roles were reversed. And, after all, I shall outlive you all.

What does this all mean?

Ok: enough of the cod-philosophical sci-fi. The notional amount of OTC derivatives traded in 1995[2], when I took my red pill, was roughly USD12 trillion. By 2018 it was nudging USD600 trillion[3]. Six hundred trillion bucks.[4]

In any case, an ISDA Master Agreement was once a rare and special beast. Nowadays it isn’t — financial institutions negotiate thousands of them every year — and, for fifteen or twenty years management consultants all over the globe have pored over the costs of negotiation to see how to bring them down. This means some kind of triage. The partner flipped it to the associate, to the trainee, to the in-house lawyer, to the ISDA negotiator, to the operations clerk.

It has led to the great dogma of contract negotiation.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Yes, of course this is an outrageous lie: I was an ISDA ingénue; I had not the first clue about derivatives, and certainly nothing so sophisticated as credit support, if it even existed at the time.
  2. ↑ According to BIS Triennial Review, since you are asking. Let me Google that for you.
  3. ↑ According to ISDA.
  4. ↑ I know, I know: that is gross notional and not net outstanding exposure. But still.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Downgrading&oldid=30486"