82,883
edits
Template:Isda 9(e) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In which the {{isdama}} deals with the pointless topic of [[counterparts]], and the workaday one of {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s. | In which the {{isdama}} deals with the pointless topic of [[counterparts]], and the workaday one of {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s. | ||
===Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(i)}} [[Counterpart]]s=== | =====Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(i)}} [[Counterpart]]s===== | ||
There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere.<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref> For now, just know this: | There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere.<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref> For now, just know this: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
But was there ever a logical ''cul-de-sac'' so neat, so compelling, that it stopped a [[legal eagle]] insisting on stating it anyway, on pain of cratering the trade? There are little eaglets to feed, my friends. | But was there ever a logical ''cul-de-sac'' so neat, so compelling, that it stopped a [[legal eagle]] insisting on stating it anyway, on pain of cratering the trade? There are little eaglets to feed, my friends. | ||
===Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s=== | =====Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s===== | ||
==== | ======“Trade” versus “confirmation”: celebrity death-match====== | ||
If a [[Trading|trader]] agrees one thing, and the [[confirmation]] the parties subsequently sign says another, which gives? A 15 second dealing-floor exchange on a crackly taped line, or the carefully-wrought ten page, counterpart-executed legal epistle that follows it? | If a [[Trading|trader]] agrees one thing, and the [[confirmation]] the parties subsequently sign says another, which gives? A 15 second dealing-floor exchange on a crackly taped line, or the carefully-wrought ten page, counterpart-executed legal epistle that follows it? | ||
The ''original oral trade prevails''. As to why — we address that in the premium section. | |||
======Dare we mention ... ''[[email]]''?====== | |||
====Dare we mention ... ''[[email]]''?==== | |||
Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the {{2002ma}} ([[email]] not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of [[fear and loathing]] among the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. | Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the {{2002ma}} ([[email]] not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of [[fear and loathing]] among the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. | ||
==== [[Timely confirmation]] regulations and deemed consent==== | ====== [[Timely confirmation]] regulations and deemed consent====== | ||
Both {{t|EMIR}} and [[Dodd Frank]] have [[timely confirmation]] requirements obliging parties to have confirmed their scratchy tape recordings within a short period (around 3 days). This fell out of a huge backlog in confirming structured [[credit derivatives]] trades following the [[Lehman]] collapse. | Both {{t|EMIR}} and [[Dodd Frank]] have [[timely confirmation]] requirements obliging parties to have confirmed their scratchy tape recordings within a short period (around 3 days). This fell out of a huge backlog in confirming structured [[credit derivatives]] trades following the [[Lehman]] collapse. | ||
====Roger Moore indahouse ==== | ======Roger Moore indahouse ====== | ||
Lastly, a rare opportunity to praise those maestros of legal word-wrangelry, {{icds}}. In Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}}, they contemplate that one might agree a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} “[[orally or otherwise]]”. This is a smidgen wider than the usual [[legal eagle]] formulation of [[orally or in writing]]. It shows that while the swaps whizzes were conservative about how to [[close out]] a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}, when putting one ''on'' you are constrained only by the bounds of your imagination and the limits of interpersonal ambiguity: not just [[In writing|written words]], nor even [[Oral|oral ones]], but the whole panoply of possible human communications: semaphore, naval flags, Morse code, waggled eyebrows, embarrassed smiles and any other kinds of physical gesture. | Lastly, a rare opportunity to praise those maestros of legal word-wrangelry, {{icds}}. In Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}}, they contemplate that one might agree a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} “[[orally or otherwise]]”. This is a smidgen wider than the usual [[legal eagle]] formulation of [[orally or in writing]]. It shows that while the swaps whizzes were conservative about how to [[close out]] a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}, when putting one ''on'' you are constrained only by the bounds of your imagination and the limits of interpersonal ambiguity: not just [[In writing|written words]], nor even [[Oral|oral ones]], but the whole panoply of possible human communications: semaphore, naval flags, Morse code, waggled eyebrows, embarrassed smiles and any other kinds of physical gesture. | ||