Terms of business: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Terms of business (view source)

Revision as of 10:41, 10 December 2020

506 bytes removed , 10 December 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|broker|}}If you are a [[broker-dealer]], your basic terms for handling orders and stuff. The theory is that [[TOB]]s are mostly harmless — only 97 pages long, of course — and [[broker]]s bang them out at the inception of the relationship expecting that, if the client even notices them at all, they get stuck in a draw and no-one ever thinks about them again. The last thing anyone wants is for the client to send the TOBs to legal.
+{{a|brokerage|}}If you are a [[broker-dealer]], your basic terms for handling orders and stuff. The theory is that [[TOB]]s are mostly harmless — only 97 pages long, of course — and [[broker]]s bang them out at the inception of the relationship expecting that, if the client even notices them at all, they get stuck in a draw and no-one ever thinks about them again. The last thing anyone wants is for the client to send the TOBs to their [[legal eagles]].
-This can happen. Indeed, a client’s reaction to its broker’s [[terms of business]] is a pretty good gauge of how badly in need of streamlining its [[legal]] department is. In these austere times it is quite a comfort to see that cost cutting hasn’t hit all of the [[mediocre lawyer]]’s favourite habitats.
+This can happen. Indeed, a client’s reaction to its broker’s [[terms of business]] is a pretty good gauge of how badly in need of streamlining its own [[legal]] department is. If you have people prepared to argue the toss about TOBs, you have a working illustration of [[Parkinson’s Law]] before your very eyes. In these austere times, it is quite a comfort to see that cost-cutting hasn’t hit all of the [[mediocre lawyer]]’s favourite habitats.
+In any case, hold these truths as self-evident:
+*No-one has ever sued, or been sued, on their [[TOBs]]. I mean, why would you?
+*No-one, other than [[legal]], has ever even ''read'' the goddamn things.
+===US===
 In the {{tag|US}}, [[broker]]s tend not to have [[TOB]]s because the market relies on the basic terms of the [[Uniform Commercial Code]].
+===EMEA===
 In EMEA, [[broker]]s do tend to have written [[terms of business]], if for no other reason because [[MiFID]] 2 imposes quite a lot of basic requirements that they need to memorialise.
+===The [[Simmons TOBS offensive]]===
-Each time [[ESMA]] updates [[MiFID]] dear old [[Simmons & Simmons]] kicks off a really hilarious<ref>Like ''really'' hilarious. I can’t tell you how fun it is.</ref> game where they gee their institutional [[asset manager]] clients up into a frenzy about how outrageous their [[broker]]s’ [[terms of business]] are, and present them with a nineteen page generic letter of rebuttal. This precipitates a 9 month attritional paper war which is redolent of — and about as much of a waste of time, effort and young lives as — the Belgian trenches in World War I.
+{{simmons tobs offensive}}
-In fairness, many [[broker]]s don't help themselves with their completely absurd [[terms of business]]. The longer ones check in at something like 80 pages. The shortest ones are three or four.
 And all of this goes before we even get into arguments about whether we need a [[sovereign immunity]] waiver clause or to appoint a [[process agent]].
-Hold these truths as self-evident:
-*No-one has ever sued, or been sued, on the basis of [[terms of business]].
-*No-one, other than [[legal]] has ever even read the goddamn terms of business.
 {{ref}}