82,891
edits
Piece of paper: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{anat|negotiation| | {{anat|negotiation|{{image|Shit fan|jpg|When [[credit]] hears about this, the [[When the shit hits the fan|shit’s really going to hit the fan]].}}}}{{dpn|/piːs ɒv ˈpeɪpə/|n|}}''Derogatory [[sales]] slang'': <br> | ||
}} | |||
:(1) A legal {{tag|contract}}. <br> | :(1) A legal {{tag|contract}}. <br> | ||
:(2) Any [[verbiage]] put together by the [[legal eagles]] that gets [[credit]] [[Inclined|across the line]]. <br> | :(2) Any [[verbiage]] put together by the [[legal eagles]] that gets [[credit]] [[Inclined|across the line]]. <br> | ||
'''Usage'''<br> | '''Usage'''<br> | ||
''Well, you only have yourself to blame. You know what they say: [[don’t take a piece of paper to a knife fight]].'' | ''Well, you only have yourself to blame. You know what they say: [[don’t take a piece of paper to a knife fight]].'' | ||
==What a piece of paper | ==What a piece of paper isn’t== | ||
Some of the [[JC]]’s hoary old platitudes about what pieces of paper are ''not'' for: | Some of the [[JC]]’s hoary old platitudes about what pieces of paper are ''not'' for: | ||
===Don’t codify internal policy=== | ===Don’t codify internal policy=== | ||
| Line 15: | Line 12: | ||
Now if there is one thing we know about the [[meatware]], it ''will'' fail to follow pre-ordained steps, because ''that’s how the [[meatware]] rolls''. as an exercise in exalting [[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza|''form'' at the expense of ''substance'']] — a cardinal sin in the [[JC]]’s playbook — you could hardly ask for a better example.<ref>Employment lawyers: we don’t often spend time talking to you, but the classic HR error is to put the employer’s pre-agreed procedural steps for conducting any disciplinary hearing into an employment contract. That way any failure to follow that ''exact'' process, however pointless, is a [[breach of contract]] and no longer simply a question of procedural fairness but, as a clear-cut breach of contract, a ''substantial'' unfairness.</ref> Besides, your policies can and will change. Do you fancy repapering every time ''that'' happens? | Now if there is one thing we know about the [[meatware]], it ''will'' fail to follow pre-ordained steps, because ''that’s how the [[meatware]] rolls''. as an exercise in exalting [[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza|''form'' at the expense of ''substance'']] — a cardinal sin in the [[JC]]’s playbook — you could hardly ask for a better example.<ref>Employment lawyers: we don’t often spend time talking to you, but the classic HR error is to put the employer’s pre-agreed procedural steps for conducting any disciplinary hearing into an employment contract. That way any failure to follow that ''exact'' process, however pointless, is a [[breach of contract]] and no longer simply a question of procedural fairness but, as a clear-cut breach of contract, a ''substantial'' unfairness.</ref> Besides, your policies can and will change. Do you fancy repapering every time ''that'' happens? | ||
===Don’t ask your counterparty to underwrite your internal governance=== | |||
Contracts are no place to outsource your own internal policy governance on your counterparty either. Herewith the age-old chestnut of the [[authorised signatory lists]]. Likewise, if your counterparty says, for example, “we are a UCITS fund and we can’t enter into term repo trades, so we need a right to terminate on any day, at par” — thereby helping themselves to a free option at your expense, in the name of regulatory compliance — your answer is “If you aren’t allowed to do term trades, the solution is really easy: ''don’t'' do freaking term trades. There’s no reason I should underwrite your internal lack of governance.” | |||
===Contracts are your last, and weakest, line of defence=== | |||
If you have to resort to your legal contract to get you out of a pickle, someone has not been doing his job. Your organisation has let a situation that it was meant to be managing get out of hand. Exercising defensive contractual rights is like deploying a [[smart bomb]] in ''[[Defender]]'', only there’s a fair chance it will blow up in your face. | |||
A [[risk controller]] who thinks, let alone says out loud — and it pains me to say that they really do, readers — “at end of the day, if the shit hits the fan, it is all about documentation” needs to be told to [[Get your coat|get her coat]]. ''It is '''not''' “all about documentation”. It is about making sure the shit '''doesn’t''' hit the bloody fan.'' | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||