The devil is not in the detail. The devil is the detail: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

The devil is not in the detail. The devil is the detail (view source)

Revision as of 14:09, 8 February 2023

3,306 bytes added , 8 February 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,903

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Quote|''Der Teufel mag im Detail stecken, aber Gott steckt in den Lücken!''<ref>“The Devil may be in the detail, but God is in the gaps.”</ref>
+{{a|maxim|<br>
+{{image|Devil in the Detail I|png|''Devil in the Detail I''. {{vsr|1958}}}}
+{{image|Devil in the Detail II|png|''Devil in the Detail II''. {{vsr|1959}}}}
+}}{{Quote|
+{{dsh god in the gaps quote}}
 :—{{Buchstein}}, {{dsh}}}}
 It is a well-worn trope: there is so much one can commoditise, but the final mile is across ice-fields and shattered obsidian and you must walk it in the moccasins of deep expertise, lest you cut your feet to the bone. It may be true that 80 per cent of your bond documentation is [[boilerplate]], but the rest — oof — is a monster.
-Of course, the boilerplate is pretty monstrous, too.
+Of course, the [[boilerplate]] is pretty monstrous, too.
-On this commonplace is much of the [[Magic Circle]]’s patter premised: they are ably aided in it by their clients, many of them refugees of that brotherhood whose livelihoods are similarly guaranteed by the presumption. And, to be sure, should you peruse your average [[securitisation]] — here’s the prospectus for [https://capitalmarkets.fanniemae.com/media/6516/display Multifamily Connecticut Avenue Securities Series 2019-01 Notes Due October 2049] — you will soon be scooping out your eyes with the proverbial spoon.
+But — as {{buchstein}}’s long-forgotten libretto had it: ''der Teufel mag im Detail stecken, aber Gott steckt in den Lücken!''<ref>“The Devil may be in the detail, but God is in the gaps.”</ref>
-Some 25 years ago the European Commission hit upon the idea of requiring structured products manufacturers to produce a one-page summary of the key risks of financial products being offered to the public. The document, a [[Key Investor Information Document]] became a part of financial products regulation oer the immense objections of the legal community on the grounds that it is ''impossible'' to adequately explain the risks of a complicated legal product in fewer than the 80-100 pages it was presently taking.
+=== Make way, I’m a lawyer ===
+On this commonplace is much of the [[Magic circle law firm|magic circle]]’s patter premised: to give them credit, they are ably aided in it by their [[In-house lawyer|in-house clients]], many of them refugees of the same brotherhood, and whose livelihoods are guaranteed by the same presumption.
-To which the regulators’ response was, “if you can’t explain the big picture risks in a single page, the product cannot be suitable for the general public”. Which is a kind of zinger.
+{{quote|''If you make yourself really complicated, you can exclude virtually everyone.''<ref>With apologies to {{Author|Daniel Dennett}}’s “if you make yourself really small, you can externalise virtually everything”.</ref>}}
+And, to be sure, should you peruse your average [[securitisation]] — here’s the prospectus for [https://capitalmarkets.fanniemae.com/media/6516/display Multifamily Connecticut Avenue Securities Series 2019-01 Notes Due October 2049] — you will soon be reaching for the proverbial spoon, to scoop out your own eyes.
+Some 25 years ago the European Commission hit upon the idea of requiring structured products manufacturers to produce a one-page summary of the key risks of financial products being offered to the public. The document, a [[key investor information document]], became a part of financial products regulation, over the immense and highly principled objections of the legal community, on the grounds that it is ''impossible'' to adequately explain the risks of a complicated legal product in fewer than the 80-100 pages it was presently taking.
+The regulators replied, “well, if you can’t explain the big picture risks in a single page, the product can’t be suitable for the general public, can it?”
+This the law firms found hard to contradict. The [[Key information document|KIID]] — satirised in Muriel Repartee’s schlocky  B Movie [[The Day of the MiFID|''The Day of the MiFID'']] — become law.
+Yet, the eighty-page prospectus remains — and from a liability perspective, governs — even though no-one can even pretend that anyone reads them any more.
+=== The essence is of the essence. ===
+That our contracts must, at some level, be able to be reduced to their essence isn’t just for [[Ultimate client|gentle pensioners]] dandling grandchildren on their knees. The neurotic particularisation of risks ''that are basically generic'' feathers many a [[Subject matter expert|subject matter expert’]]<nowiki/>s nest.
+Even sophisticated financial institutions — ''especially'' sophisticated financial institutions — need  easily to render their contracts in simple fundamental terms, because that is how they risk manage them.
+There is no machine,<ref>Not even the mythical [[Contract analysis|J.P. Morgan loan reading machine]] of [[Daniel Susskind|Susskind]] fan fiction.</ref> and certainly no human being, in the bowels of an investment bank that is constantly monitoring the text of its {{isdama}} battery to ensure every covenant is performed, every representation true, every implicit [[option]] buried in a contingent fallback exercised, or costed, [[as the case may be]]. These contracts are reduced to their a few basic economic parameters: that is all the firm’s creaking IT infrastructure can manage. The rest — those lawyer-confected paranoid contingencies the firm paid so handsomely for; that deal with unfeasible externalities, improbable scenarios and outlying tail risks are buried, filed away, to be dealt with, absent any context, by the [[legal eagle]]s in the heat of the improbable moment that they should arise.
+Come to think of it, it is a wonder there ''isn’t'' a squadron of waxen, hairless drones buried in some call centre in Bucharest rifling through that mountain of documents manually covering off that exact risk. It would make a great subplot for an [[Opco Boone]] adventure, in fact.
+This extra detail is, therefore simple ''heft'': to the extent it ''confers'' upon a firm optionality that the organisation [[Formal|formally]] ''and'' [[Substance and form|substantively]] knows nothing about it is, [[Q.E.D.]], in no position to exploit that right; if it ''grants'' optionality, it is a risk the organisation is short, but is not managing. In either case, the proverbial [[unknown known]]: we nod along and hope that, whatever happens, it isn’t significant.
 {{sa}}
+* [[Key investor information document|Key person]]
 *[[Document risk]]
 *[[Die Schweizer Heulsuse]]
 {{ref}}