Structurer: Difference between revisions

330 bytes added ,  5 September 2018
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
A queer fish with an odd relationship with the [[Legal Eagles|legal department]], from whom she almost certainly originated. [[Structurers]], and ''legal'' structurers, are some kind of odd hybrid between [[Sales]] and [[Trading]], hired onto the desk in the dog days of 2005 (when anyone actually ''did'' “structuring”) to salt away the fiddly details of a complex derivative trade that [[Trading]] can’t model and [[Sales]] has no hope of understanding, let alone giving the merest toss about.
A queer fish with an odd relationship with the [[Legal Eagles|legal department]], from whose bosom the very idea of a “structurer” originated. [[Structurers]], and ''legal'' structurers, are some kind of odd hybrid between [[Sales]] and [[Trading]], hired onto the desk in the dog days of 2005 (when anyone actually ''did'' “[[structuring]]”) to salt away the fiddly details of a complex derivative trade that [[Trading]] can’t model and [[Sales]] has no hope of understanding, let alone giving the merest toss about. Structurers are essentially [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] that have got a bit giddy about working in an [[investment bank]].


Whether such a graduate structurer is a kind of übermensch who has overcome her basic nature to become something greater, or just a runt who has succumbed to his own mortal weakness, having proven unable to hack the rigours of unadulterated legal practice, is a matter of conjecture. Structurers tend to say the former; in-house lawyers the latter, though there is irony here in that private practice lawyers will say exactly the same thing about those who have gone in-house.
Whether she is a legal übermensch who has overcome her basic nature to become something greater, or just a runt who, having proven unable to hack the rigours of unadulterated legal practice, has succumbed to her own mortal weakness, is a matter of conjecture. Opinions are divided: [[structurers]] will tell you it’s the former; unreconstructed [[Inhouse counsel|in-house lawyers]] will swear it’s the latter — each talks her own book, in other words — though the irony is that [[private practice lawyer]]s will say exactly the same thing about those who have gone in-house.


In any case structurers tend to obsess about legal details, to the exasperation of their [[legal]] colleagues whose job it actually is to obsess about this. when two factions in the same camp are trying to outdo each other in pedantry before the other side has even had a go, there is no hope that the document will be anything but a disaster.
In any case, structurers tend to obsess about legal details, to the exasperation of those in [[legal]] whose job it actually is to obsess about this. Observe the effect this has on legal product: when two factions in the same camp are trying to outdo each other’s pedantry before the other side has even had a look, there is scant hope that the document will avoid disaster: it was this kind of internal arms race, after all, that led to the CDO cubed.
 
This kind of internal arms race led to the CDO cubed.


There are fewer structurers around these days, and they’re a chastened lot.
There are fewer structurers around these days, and they’re a chastened lot.
Line 13: Line 11:
*[[Sales]]
*[[Sales]]
*[[Trading]]
*[[Trading]]
 
*[[Inhouse counsel]]
 


{{dramatis personae}}
{{dramatis personae}}