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 19:51, 19 February 2024

219 bytes added , 19 February

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,469

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In which JC ventures forth, uninvited, onto the topic of what makes a good ISDA. The same things, we rather think that make any good commercial contract, but ISDA is what we know so we should go with that.
+In which JC ventures forth, unbidden, onto the topic of ''what makes a good ISDA''. Mainly the same things that make any good commercial contract, but ISDA is what we know so we will go with it.
-The pre-printed Master Agreement is what it is — it was drafted, so conventional wisdom has it, from granite and so as to ''avoid'' controversy — so when we talk about the “qualities of a good ISDA” we mean of course the qualities of a good ISDA ''{{isdaprov|Schedule}}''. It is over that appendage that you will conduct all your skirmishes.
+The pre-printed Master Agreement being what it is — a stone tablet hewn, so conventional wisdom has it, from holy granite so as to ''avoid'' controversy — when we talk about the “qualities of a good ISDA” it goes without saying “the sacred fourteen” are already immaculate: we mean of course a good ISDA ''{{isdaprov|Schedule}}''. It is toiling over that, grubby mortal appendix — a crazed shadow thrown by guttering light across the far wall of Plato's cave —that you will live out your days.<Ref>What is the difference between a schedule, an appendix and an annex?</ref>
-A scan of the sub-headings to this article will reveal five basic qualities:  ''fairness'', ''clarity'', ''consistency'', ''simplicity'' and aptness to instil ''confidence''.
+A scan of the sub-headings below will betray JCs view of it: an ISDA should have five basic qualities:  ''fairness'', ''clarity'', ''consistency'', ''simplicity'' and aptness to instil ''confidence''.
 These qualities interact with and, in large part, depend on each other. They are in symbiosis.
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{Quote|“There could be no negotiating with terrorists.”
 :—Attributed to Richard Nixon}}
-{{Drop|[[Qualities of a good ISDA|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 that [[alternative dispute resolution]] module but is sure to ship a haymaker to the jaw on first contact with the real commercial world. We are enculturated to treat a negotiation as some kind of trench warfare: as if we are facing a mortal enemy and not our customer. It is true that our customers tend to be similarly disposed — ''fairness'' never gets a chance to break out.
+{{Drop|[[Qualities of a good ISDA|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 that [[alternative dispute resolution]] module but is sure to ship a haymaker to the jaw on first contact with commercial reality. We treat a negotiation as some kind of trench warfare: as if we face a mortal enemy and not a customer. It is true that our customers tend to be 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''.