Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Tags: Manual revert Reverted |
| Line 130: |
Line 130: |
|
| |
|
| Almost all the tools you need are in the master. It bears repeating that, in these days of daily [[variation margin]], it will be a rare day when your only option to close out a loss-making ISDA will be a [[NAV trigger]] or a [[key person clause]]. | | Almost all the tools you need are in the master. It bears repeating that, in these days of daily [[variation margin]], it will be a rare day when your only option to close out a loss-making ISDA will be a [[NAV trigger]] or a [[key person clause]]. |
|
| |
| ===What you can do about it===
| |
| {{drop|“T|his is all}} very well, JC, but ''come on''. What hope have I, as a mere subject matter expert, to influence organisation’s sacred forms?”
| |
|
| |
| It is a truism of institutional life that {{shitmaxim|nothing is more immutable than policy}}. Well, this is certainly true if ''no-one ever challenges it''. And who better to challenge it than you? Is not that the very thing you offer that a passive stack of papers cannot?
| |
|
| |
| You might be surprised at what you can achieve.
| |
|
| |
| It is true that buy-side negotiators are no less institutionalised. Having, by and large, been forged in the same private practice sweatshops (or Bulgarian call centres) they too have expectations of a certain form and we fear stepping away from it.
| |
|
| |
| JC’s anecdotal evidence is that suspicion quickly gives way to ''relief''. If you get your design right — this is a big if: lawyers are systematically conditioned to write legalese, so are really not good at it — your counterparts will quickly see its wisdom. Negotiators have enough time thrashing through everyone else’s ghastly forms and will be glad if the relief offered by an easy one.
| |
|
| |
| ''If you don’t ask, you won’t get.''
| |
|
| |
| ====“Change is disruptive and risky”====
| |
| No-one likes change for change’s sake.
| |