Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro isda qualities of a good ISDA (view source)

Revision as of 09:03, 14 February 2024

2,905 bytes added , 14 February

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,627

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+These qualities interact and depend on each other: agreements which are fair will need to be clear, those that are clear will inspire confidence in your vown staff, which will tend them away from the [[Casanova principle]] towards fairness; an agreement that is clear and fair lends itself to consistency, since there will be less cause to negotiate and one that is fair, clear and consistent is easy to maintain and, heaven forfend, enforce.
+====Fair====
+{{Drop|F|airness as an}} abstract quality seems like one of those lip-servicey, all-very-well-in-theory ideas that got you good grades in your alternative dispute resolution tutorials but takes a haymaker to the jaw on first contact with the real commercial world.
+We like to tell ourselves that, we ''do'' tell ourselves that, we are enculturated to present in the trenches as if facing a mortal enemy, and as the counterparty is similarly disposed fairness never gets a chance to break out.
+But this is no [[single round prisoner’s dilemma]]. To show fairness is not to show weakness, but ''strength''.
+JC is by lifelong experience a [[sell-side]] guy: he comes at this from the perspective of a merchant contracting with its customers. We are, generally , all on the same side: our interests gently conflict but not viciously: I want a commission, you want cheap implied funding, but beyond that we each
+wish earnestly for each other’s continued prosperity. Things can get chewy at the extremes, but most customers never get near a [[tail event|chewy extreme]].
+We may occasionally engage contract with apparently hostile parties — competitor brokers, in litigation — but even when we do, we presume limited pact of good faith for the purpose of the common end to which both sides aspire. We must, at some level trust each other, or we would not contract at all. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
+In any case, the “merchant to customer” contract is, by a landslide, the most common kind. If you have any in-house experience of bona fide, non-existential, customer disputes you will know one thing: when there is any doubt, and frequently when there is no doubt, the business will roll over. This is nothing more than common sense: you stand far more to gain in future revenue by preserving the relationship at small cost now then taking a literal stance on technical errors.
+This instinct is so pronounced that compliance teams have contrived processes to validate these waivers to ensure they do not amount to impermissible “inducements”.
+In any case, the commercial imperative is such an overwhelming power that there is little point in starting with, or achieving, terms that go beyond fair. No-one will ever use them. Seeing as, all other things being equal a you will complete a fair contract faster than you will an unfair one — [[the ideal negotiation is no negotiation]] — you should
+====Confident====
 === Clear ===