Template:M intro isda Party A and Party B: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro isda Party A and Party B (view source)

Revision as of 17:22, 22 June 2023

770 bytes added , 22 June 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,240

edits

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 So we agree: for this relationship we will call you “Party B”, and me “Party A”.
-These colourless and generic terms hark from a time where, we presume, the idea of “find and replace all” in an electronic seemed some kind of devilish black magic.
+These colourless and generic terms hark from a time where, we presume, the idea of “find and replace all” in an electronic document seemed some kind of devilish black magic. Some kind of [[Tipp-Ex]] denying subterfuge.
-But generic labels still lead to practical difficulties. A dealer with ten thousand counterparties in its portfolio wants to be Party A every time. If, on occasion, it cannot be, this can lead to anxious moments should the legal eagles misread the confirms for those rare occasions where it is not.
+But generic labels still lead to practical difficulties. A [[dealer]] with ten thousand counterparties in its portfolio wants to be “Party A” every time, just for peace of mind and literary continuity when perusing its collection of Schedules, as we know [[dealer]]s on occasion  to do.<ref>They are not.</ref> If, here and there, it must be “Party B”, it can lead to anxious moments should one misread such a Schedule and infer its infinite IM Threshold applies to the other guy, when really, as it ought, it applies to you. You quickly get over frights like this when you realise the error in your comprehension, not the negotiator’s articulation. Frights like this are, in their way, quite energising.
-[[Negotiator|Negotiators]], too, are prone to forget. This is just the sort of thing a [[four-eyes check]] will miss: when dropping in your {{isdaprov|PPF Event}} template rider for that one time in a thousand when you are not Party A, it is easy to forget to invert the labels. If you do forget, no-one will never know — ''unless and until it is way too late''.
+Less energising are actual errors: negotiators are redoubtable, admirable creatures but like all of us fallible, and prone to forget: they may, by lowly force of habit, forget to invert the “Party” labels when inserting your boilerplate {{isdaprov|PPF Event}} rider for that one time in a thousand when you are not “Party A”. It is easily done, and just the sort of thing a [[four-eyes check]] will also miss: If it does, no-one will never know — ''unless and until it is too late''.
+===''Is'' it bilateral though?===
+But there is a better objection: for all our automatic protestations to the contrary, the ISDA is not ''really'' a bilateral contract, and it ''is'' often financing contract.
-But there is a better objection: for all our automatic protestations to the contrary, the ISDA ''is not'' a bilateral contract, and it ''is'' a financing contract. We should not let ourselves forget: beyond the comparatively rare interdealer universe, there will be a “dealer” and  there will be
+We should not let ourselves forget: beyond the cramped star system of interdealer relationships, there is a boundless universe where one is a “dealer” and the other a “customer”. These roles are different. They do not depend on who is long and who is short. It behoves us not to forget.
-a “customer”. Their roles are different, not depending on who is long and who is short, and it behoves us not to forget.
-In recent years — ironically, just as the dealer vs customer dynamic has become more pronounced — the global regulatory approach, still fighting last decade’s war, has kidded itself to the contrary.
+In recent years — ironically, just as the “dealer” vs “customer” dynamic has become more pronounced<ref>After the [[GFC]] bank proprietary trading fell away to almost nothing.</ref> — the global regulatory approach, still fighting last decade’s war, has kidded itself to the contrary.