83,577
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Non-Reliance - ISDA Provision|Also]], for good order, in not so many words and for no compelling reason, reproduced in Article {{eqderivprov|13.1}} of the {{eqderivdefs}}. | [[Non-Reliance - ISDA Provision|Also]], for good order, in not so many words and for no compelling reason, reproduced in Article {{eqderivprov|13.1}} of the {{eqderivdefs}}. | ||
You might ask why this representation wasn’t included somehow in Section 3 of the {{isdama}}, along with all the other Representations. Perhaps it was an afterthought — though it is hard to udnerstand if so why it made it to the pre-printed schedule. | |||
In any case, the contents of this representation are throroughly uncontroversial: it is designed purely to head off mendacious, buyer’s remorse-inflected regrets at having participated in a transaction in which one has lost money. | |||
The deal is that [[swap dealer]]s, sitting as they do on the public side of the great wall of information barriers that runs down the middle of an investment bank, owe no fiuciary obligations<ref>This rule is progressively honoured in the regulatory breach, by the way, with things like best execution, but it remains the operating theory.</ref> and give no advice and operate at arm’s length — so this is really just a fancy way of saying BUYER BEWARE. If you want ''advice'', go see an investment adviser. |