81,902
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[Due diligence]] is ''not'' an exercise in asking your counterparty to explain your legal {{t|contract}} to you. You can read that for yourself or, if you can’t bring yourself to do that,<ref>And who, really, could blame you?</ref> ask your [[legal eagle]]s to do that for you. Then ''they'' can advise you. But your [[broker]] is ''not'' your legal adviser, is specifically not be regulated to advise you on your contract (and, being the person on the other side of it, inherently [[conflict of interest|conflicted]] in giving you that advice). | [[Due diligence]] is ''not'' an exercise in asking your counterparty to explain your legal {{t|contract}} to you. You can read that for yourself or, if you can’t bring yourself to do that,<ref>And who, really, could blame you?</ref> ask your [[legal eagle]]s to do that for you. Then ''they'' can advise you. But your [[broker]] is ''not'' your legal adviser, is specifically not be regulated to advise you on your contract (and, being the person on the other side of it, inherently [[conflict of interest|conflicted]] in giving you that advice). | ||
Nor is [[due diligence]] a fishing expedition. It is not an excuse for extracting commercially sensitive [[Confidential information - Confi Provision|confidential information]] from your broker or subcustodian, a legal entity who may, when wearing one of its thousand other faces, be your mortal competitor. | Nor is [[due diligence]] a fishing expedition. It is not an excuse for extracting commercially sensitive [[Confidential information - Confi Provision|confidential information]] from your broker or subcustodian, a legal entity who may, when wearing one of its thousand other faces, be your mortal competitor. Don’t expect it to hand over all its legal contracts with suppliers to you. | ||
===What [[due diligence]] ''definitely'' is not=== | ===What [[due diligence]] ''definitely'' is not=== |