Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Non-Reliance: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
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.

Navigation menu