82,803
edits
Template:Isda 1(b) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Why labour this obvious point? Because [[JC]] has had to explain to a disbelieving external compliance audit firm, retained to ensure quality control over a portfolio of tens of thousands of master trading agreements, that none of them had been inline amended, and there was no need for a core-sample test, or a gap analysis, or a nine-month all-points operational risk deep dive to be sure that this was the case, and it was an argument that ran for three weeks and which the JC almost ''lost''. | Why labour this obvious point? Because [[JC]] has had to explain to a disbelieving external compliance audit firm, retained to ensure quality control over a portfolio of tens of thousands of master trading agreements, that none of them had been inline amended, and there was no need for a core-sample test, or a gap analysis, or a nine-month all-points operational risk deep dive to be sure that this was the case, and it was an argument that ran for three weeks and which the JC almost ''lost''. | ||
The {{isdama}} is shot through with unimaginative design, unnecessary verbiage and conceptual convolution, but this is one design principle the [[’squad]] got absolutely right: offboarding amendments to a schedule does several smart things: it creates a neutral standard for all participants; it disincentivises fripperous amendments | The {{isdama}} is shot through with unimaginative design, unnecessary verbiage and conceptual convolution, but this is one design principle the [[’squad]] got absolutely right: offboarding amendments to a schedule does several smart things: it creates a neutral standard for all participants; it makes very clear at a glance what has changed from the standard, and it disincentivises fripperous amendments: it is a rare though, not unknown, pedant who insists on saying “Section 2(a)(i) is amended by adding “, as the case may be” before the full stop on the third line.” if that means writing it out longhand in a separate schedule. | ||
In point of fact the {{ {{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s don’t tend to ''modify'' anything in the Master or {{ {{{1}}}|Schedule}}, but rather builds on them, but if there is inconsistency — and with a document as pedantic and overwrought as the {{isdama}} you never know — then the most specific, recently edited document will be the one that prevails. | In point of fact the {{ {{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s don’t tend to ''modify'' anything in the Master or {{ {{{1}}}|Schedule}}, but rather builds on them, but if there is inconsistency — and with a document as pedantic and overwrought as the {{isdama}} you never know — then the most specific, recently edited document will be the one that prevails. | ||
All of this follows from general principles of contractual interpretation and common sense communication, of course. | All of this follows from general principles of contractual interpretation and common sense communication, of course. | ||