Finance contract: Difference between revisions

Finance contract (view source)

Revision as of 11:25, 8 June 2021

1,429 bytes added , 8 June 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{def|Finance contract|/faɪˈnæns/ /ˈkɒntrækt/|n|}}
-Any contract the gist of which is for its parties to exchange large amounts of money, or money-like things, having readily realisable value, and the performance of which therefore generates significant [[credit risk]], should one of the parties blow up before it has a chance to pay everything it owes under the contract.
+Any [[contract]] the gist of which is for its parties to exchange ''large'' — like, ''really'' large — amounts of [[money]], or [[Securities|money-like things]], having readily realisable value, and the performance of which therefore generates significant [[credit risk]], should one of the parties [[Insolvency|blow up]] before it can pay everything it owes under the contract.
-The paradigm example of a finance contract is a [[loan]]. Other good examples are [[swap]]s, futures, [[securities]], [[Securities financing transaction|securities financing arrangements]], [[option]]s, trade financing arrangements, securitisations and commodity supply contracts.
+The classic finance contract is a [[loan]]. I lend you a large sum of money; you pay me interest, and eventually pay it back. In the mean time I am constantly beset by daemons, plagues, dread terrors and so on, fantastical threnodies all on the single worry that ''you never pay me back''.
-Finance contracts create special, ''large'', financial risks, and therefore have lots and lots of [[boilerplate]] aimed to keep those who are owed money, or money-like things, safe.
+Other good examples are [[swap]]s, futures, [[securities]], [[Securities financing transaction|securities financing arrangements]], [[option]]s, trade financing arrangements, securitisations and commodity supply contracts. Extra points for excitement if they [[cross-border|cross borders]] or constitute, as they often will, regulated activity of some kind.
-Finance boilerplate is thus an unfortunate and miserable fact of life for banking legal eagles, but we contrarians address our labours with fortitude, good humour, and do our level best to see the funny side of it. Not easy, but possible.
+Finance contracts create special, ''large'', monetary risks. These are different in quality and nature than risks presented by other contracts. You may — in fact, almost certainly will — feel a deep resentment and disappointment at those you engage to carry out your loft extension, as the fourteenth month passes of a project you were assured would take six weeks, but the answer is just to not pay. It may exasperate you, mightily, but it isn’t ''that'' likely to send you to the brink of ruin, and — trust me — ''however'' dismal your contractors may be, suing them will be worse, and self-help isn’t really an option. If it was, no-one would hire builders in the first place.
-But ''other'' legal eagles should not have to toil so. You would think they would rejoice in this comparative freedom from the outright [[tedium]] of financial wordwrightery. “Look at us,” you might expect they would say, taunting the poor, Promethean banking legal eagle, chained to a rock and pecking away at his ''own'' liver, “with our our neat, elegant and [[Prose stylist|stylish prose contracts]]. How ghastly it must be to be a banking legal eagle.”
+But when your business is handing over large quantities of liquid assets and cash to people you don’t know well, in the expectation of they will in the future return them, things can quickly, and effortlessly, go badly wrong.  Therefore finance contracts have lots and lots of [[boilerplate]] aimed to keep those who are owed money-like things safe.
-But, friends, they do not say that, Rather they have a kind of banking ''envy''. It seems they want ''their'' contracts to be long and impentrable and tiresome too. And to do that they have just [[Cultural appropriation|culturally ''appropriated'']] banking boilerplate.
+[[Finance boilerplate]] is thus an unfortunate, miserable fact of life for [[banking legal eagle|banking legal eagles]], but we address our labours with fortitude, good humour, and do our level best to see the funny side of it, seeing as we have no choice. Levity is not easy, but possible — it propels this wiki, after all.
+But ''other'', non-banking, legal eagles should not have to toil so. One would think they would rejoice in such a freedom from the [[tedium]] of financial wordwrightery.
+“Look at us,” you might expect they would say, taunting the poor, Promethean [[banking legal eagle]], chained to a rock and pecking away at his ''own'' liver, “with our our neat, elegant and [[Prose stylist|stylish prose contracts]]. How ''ghastly'' it must be to be a banking legal eagle.”
+But, friends, they do not say that. Many even confect a kind of banking ''envy''. It seems they want ''their'' contracts to be long and impenetrable and tiresome, too, to give them that banky ''cachet''. And to do that they have just [[Cultural appropriation|culturally ''appropriated'']] [[banking boilerplate]].
 And so we find ''non'' financing contracts — things like service agreements, employment contracts, licensing arrangements — which should be a model of [[James Ellroy|Ellroy]]esque brevity, are shot through with this ghastly banking dreck.