82,890
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}The process of getting a client in the door and set up. Depending on what your client wants to do once she has made it aboard, this generally has a number of stages — in the argot, [[milestone]]s, such as: | {{a|devil| | ||
[[File:Onboarding.jpg|450px|thumb|center|An unsinkable [[master agreement]], yesterday.]] | |||
}}The process of getting a client in the door and set up. Depending on what your client wants to do once she has made it aboard, this generally has a number of stages — in the argot, [[milestone]]s, such as: | |||
*[[KYC]]: all customers have to experience the rubber glove of AML procedures | *[[KYC]]: all customers have to experience the rubber glove of AML procedures | ||
*{{cobsprov|Client categorisation}}: A team will have to decide you are [[professional client]]s and send out the relevant [[terms of business]] and disclosures; | *{{cobsprov|Client categorisation}}: A team will have to decide you are [[professional client]]s and send out the relevant [[terms of business]] and disclosures; | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
But, but, but — why must it be that our onboarding process does nothing ''but'' obsess about disaster scenarios? We know of cases where even affiliated broker-dealers have laboured for ''years'' to conclude a simple [[Global Master Securities Lending Agreement|stock lending agreement]]. Entities under common control in the same group. | But, but, but — why must it be that our onboarding process does nothing ''but'' obsess about disaster scenarios? We know of cases where even affiliated broker-dealers have laboured for ''years'' to conclude a simple [[Global Master Securities Lending Agreement|stock lending agreement]]. Entities under common control in the same group. | ||
Every element of it is arrayed ''against'' the client, as if the client is until proven otherwise, a money-laundering | Every element of it is arrayed ''against'' the client, as if the client is until proven otherwise, a dissolute money-laundering gambler and fraud who will stop at nothing to subvert your legitimate interests in making a fair return out of your relationship. Now, look: the [[JC]] is certainly not naive enough to think there are no institutions like that in the ecosystem. There certainly are. Most of them, in fact. We assume a broadly Hobbesian view of human nature in the wild, and wish others would too. But that is not the point. The point is that, even against such bounders and cads, a mute legal document — espacially one you hammered out nineteen years ago and haven’t looked at since — ''is no kind of protection''. [[Don’t take a piece of paper to a knife-fight]], that is to say. ''Take a knife''. Your practical risk is best managed by, well, ''actual risk management''. | ||
This is what half of your employees — the control function — are engaged to do, after all. Let them. | |||
History tells us that a miniscule minority of our contracts will ever come to disagreement, let alone court-inflicted blows. | |||
Intraday risk is best managed by relationship management: margin, credit lines, client communication — to ''avoid'' cataclysmic meltdown, rather than by having an arsenal of weapons available to you should that meltdown come about. Think Chernobyl: by the time the core explodes, it’s kind of too late. and intraday risk is best managed by relationship management: margin, credit lines, client communication — to ''avoid'' cataclysmic meltdown, rather than by having an arsenal of weapons available to you should that meltdown come about. Think Chernobyl: by the time the core explodes, it’s kind of too late. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Anti-money laundering]] | *[[Anti-money laundering]] | ||
*[[Negotiator]] | *[[Negotiator]] |