82,891
edits
Look, I tried: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|psychology|[[File:Prisoner of War Parcel, British Red Cross.JPG|450px|thumb|center|Your parcel, madam]]}}From our “understanding the implications of {{t|behavioural science}} for {{t|contract}} {{t|negotiation}}” series — it is a short series at present — comes this oft-overlooked ''motivation'' for your counterparty’s apparently absurd negotiation demands: not out of any wish or intention to ''enforce'' them, per se, but to persuade its own, absurdly demanding clients, that ''it has done its best''. | ||
In our crazy, inter-connected world, much financial markets activity comprises of fattened [[Intermediary|intermediaries]] sitting cross-legged in a circle, passing around a parcel belonging, at some remove, to [[ultimate client|someone else]]. A | In our crazy, inter-connected world, much financial markets activity comprises of fattened [[Intermediary|intermediaries]] sitting cross-legged in a circle, passing around a parcel belonging, at some remove, to [[ultimate client|someone else]]. A pensioner, most likely. As it passes by, each one takes a nibble at it. | ||
Now each of these intermediaries needs to agree the ''terms'' on which it will take the parcel, and then hand it on. Its main concern, of course, is to hold on to it for just long enough to justify a good old chomp ''before'' they pass it on, but each needs also to prepare for the consequences of the parcel, when it comes time for it to be returned to its owner, looking a bit more careworn and ragged than it was when the intermediary first got it. The parcel might not, eventually, come back at all. As it completes its return trajectory around the circle of nibblers, each intermediary, having had a last loving peck, must be able to explain the state of the parcel to the person to whom she gives it. | Now each of these intermediaries needs to agree the ''terms'' on which it will take the parcel, and then hand it on. Its main concern, of course, is to hold on to it for just long enough to justify a good old chomp ''before'' they pass it on, but each needs also to prepare for the consequences of the parcel, when it comes time for it to be returned to its owner, looking a bit more careworn and ragged than it was when the intermediary first got it. The parcel might not, eventually, come back at all. As it completes its return trajectory around the circle of nibblers, each intermediary, having had a last loving peck, must be able to explain the state of the parcel to the person to whom she gives it. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Deep down, everyone will know that this fellow has not the faintest intention of ever asking about your employees’ personal investments. Once the {{t|contract}} is safely [[Wet signature|inked]] and put away, no one will give it another thought. Why would they? And what, even if they did, could they honestly expect to do about it? What, should it discover that your employees invest in exclusively in tobacco, arms and the financing of organised crime, would be its [[loss]]? | Deep down, everyone will know that this fellow has not the faintest intention of ever asking about your employees’ personal investments. Once the {{t|contract}} is safely [[Wet signature|inked]] and put away, no one will give it another thought. Why would they? And what, even if they did, could they honestly expect to do about it? What, should it discover that your employees invest in exclusively in tobacco, arms and the financing of organised crime, would be its [[loss]]? | ||
None. But that is not the point. What it wants is ''plausible deniability'', should any of its own clients ask what on earth it thought it was it is doing giving money to Fairfield Sentry, or how it is ensuring its counterparties are all feckless [[Virtue-signalling|virtue-signallers]]. It can say, “you see? It is in the contract! They promised!” | None. But that is not the point. What it wants is ''[[plausible deniability]]'', should any of its own clients ask what on earth it thought it was it is doing giving money to Fairfield Sentry, or how it is ensuring its counterparties are all feckless [[Virtue-signalling|virtue-signallers]]. It can say, “you see? It is in the contract! They promised!” | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*[[Disintermediation]] | *[[Disintermediation]] | ||
*[[Boilerplate]] | *[[Boilerplate]] | ||
{{Technical Tuesday}} | |||