If in doubt, stick it in: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|negotiation|}}“[[If in doubt, stick it in]].A finger-post to the nearest [[negotiation oubliette]].
{{a|negotiation|{{image|Casanova|png|Casanova yesterday. Just, ah, sign here, baby.}}}}Also known as [[Casanova’s advice]] or the [[credit officer’s refrain]], “[[If in doubt, stick it in]]” — a finger-post to the nearest [[negotiation oubliette]] — is nonetheless an admonition that rings daily around the cloistered spaces of every institution but is only offered, in these pages, with a generous helping of irony.


Known as [[Casanova’s advice]] or the [[Credit officer’s refrain]], this is an admonition that rings daily around the cloistered spaces of every institution but is only offered, in these pages, with a generous helping of irony.  
“Well, it can’t hurt to ask.


Better advice: ''[[murder your darlings]]''. Or, as our brethren [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] would say, [[murder your darlings|subject one’s darlings, or procure that such darlings are subjected to, culpable homicide]].
But it ''can'' hurt to ask. Everytime you ask, a little part of your negotiation team dies.
 
So: better advice: ''[[murder your darlings]]''. Or, as our brethren [[legal eagle]]s would say, [[murder your darlings|subject one’s darlings, or procure that such darlings are subjected to, culpable homicide]].


There are two kinds of pointless things we habitually stick in contracts: absurd asks by the risk team, which all at the coalface know will be just as habitually rejected by any counterparty advisor with a pulse, even if the senior risk team draw come kind of delusional comfort from the fact they such terms are being sought at all; the other is matters of tedious compliance — be they accommodations of [[Prime brokerage disclosure annex|misconceived pedantries buried in developing regulation]] or internal [[policy|policy overreactions]] brought about during the recovery process from [[blunt trauma]] — in either case resulting in gnomic confections piped into the back end of your contract templates like so much kitchen dirt swept under a rug, only to fossilise there, unloved, undisturbed, until overlaid with yet more scar tissue.
There are two kinds of pointless things we habitually stick in contracts: absurd asks by the risk team, which all at the coalface know will be just as habitually rejected by any counterparty advisor with a pulse, even if the senior risk team draw come kind of delusional comfort from the fact they such terms are being sought at all; the other is matters of tedious compliance — be they accommodations of [[Prime brokerage disclosure annex|misconceived pedantries buried in developing regulation]] or internal [[policy|policy overreactions]] brought about during the recovery process from [[blunt trauma]] — in either case resulting in gnomic confections piped into the back end of your contract templates like so much kitchen dirt swept under a rug, only to fossilise there, unloved, undisturbed, until overlaid with yet more scar tissue.

Revision as of 13:07, 20 October 2022

Negotiation Anatomy™

Casanova.png
Casanova yesterday. Just, ah, sign here, baby.

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

Also known as Casanova’s advice or the credit officer’s refrain, “If in doubt, stick it in” — a finger-post to the nearest negotiation oubliette — is nonetheless an admonition that rings daily around the cloistered spaces of every institution but is only offered, in these pages, with a generous helping of irony.

“Well, it can’t hurt to ask.”

But it can hurt to ask. Everytime you ask, a little part of your negotiation team dies.

So: better advice: murder your darlings. Or, as our brethren legal eagles would say, subject one’s darlings, or procure that such darlings are subjected to, culpable homicide.

There are two kinds of pointless things we habitually stick in contracts: absurd asks by the risk team, which all at the coalface know will be just as habitually rejected by any counterparty advisor with a pulse, even if the senior risk team draw come kind of delusional comfort from the fact they such terms are being sought at all; the other is matters of tedious compliance — be they accommodations of misconceived pedantries buried in developing regulation or internal policy overreactions brought about during the recovery process from blunt trauma — in either case resulting in gnomic confections piped into the back end of your contract templates like so much kitchen dirt swept under a rug, only to fossilise there, unloved, undisturbed, until overlaid with yet more scar tissue.

See also