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

no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 10: Line 10:
JC is by lifelong experience a [[sell-side]] guy: he comes at this from the perspective of a merchant contracting with its customers. Hip types call these “B2C” deals, but the JC is not a hip type. Merchant and customer are, generally, on the same side: their interests conflict but gently, and not viciously: the merchant wants a [[commission]]  or a markup, the customer wants the product cheap, 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]].
JC is by lifelong experience a [[sell-side]] guy: he comes at this from the perspective of a merchant contracting with its customers. Hip types call these “B2C” deals, but the JC is not a hip type. Merchant and customer are, generally, on the same side: their interests conflict but gently, and not viciously: the merchant wants a [[commission]]  or a markup, the customer wants the product cheap, 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]].


Now sell-siders may occasionally engage with ostensible hostiles — competitors for example — but when they do, they abide by an unspoken pact of [[good faith]] for the limited ends which have brought the warring sides together. They must, at some level, trust one other or at least have a common interest, or they would not contract at all.  
Now we sell-siders may occasionally engage with ostensible ''hostiles'' — competitors for example — but when they do, they abide by an unspoken pact of [[good faith]] for the limited ends which have brought the warring sides together. They must, at some level, trust one other or at least have a common interest, or they would not contract at all.<ref>David Graeber makes a fascinating point when discussing the ''non''-origin of currency out of barter: a barter is an arm’s length trade of equivalent good conducted between parties who are dispositionally ''rivals'' and not partners. Once the exchange happens, nothing is left on the table; there is no presumption of enduring goodwill, no expectation of further business, or any kind of obligation undischarged. A barter is an exchange conducted with untrusted aliens. Inside your community, where there is trust, we are less compelled to extract our precise pound of flesh: there is a give and take; we let obligations lie undischarged and they acquire a moral quality. These are the ties that bind — the imperative becomes to ''avoid'' fully discharging our dues to each other. This is the relationship we should aspire to with our customers. We trust them to pay later — we extend ''credit''. (Hence money emerged not from fair value barter with strangers but as a way of evidencing indebtedness amongst those who knew each other. You don't extend credit to aliens.</ref>


A presumption of any negotiation is [[good faith]]. Some level of trust. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
A presumption of any negotiation is [[good faith]]. ''Some'' level of trust. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.


In any case, the “merchant-to-customer” contract is, by a landslide, the most common kind. Those with any [[in-house counsel]] experience of bona fide, non-existential, customer disputes know one thing: if there is any doubt — and frequently, when there isn’t — ''the business will roll over''. No-one takes a point with a solvent client.
In any case, the “merchant-to-customer” contract is, by a landslide, the most common kind. Those with any [[in-house counsel]] experience of bona fide, non-existential, customer disputes know one thing: if there is any doubt — and frequently, when there isn’t — ''the business will roll over''. No-one takes a point with a solvent client.