83,199
edits
Thirteenth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Thus, you can expect the documentation for a bond deal to span several hundred pages of wretched text, and so it does, notwithstanding that one can, and parties typically do, trade on a one-page [[Cocktail napkin|term-sheet]]. | Thus, you can expect the documentation for a bond deal to span several hundred pages of wretched text, and so it does, notwithstanding that one can, and parties typically do, trade on a one-page [[Cocktail napkin|term-sheet]]. | ||
[[Netting opinion|Netting opinions]] are the same: there has not been an insolvency practitioner on the planet in the last forty years who has for an instant considered challenging the “[[Single Agreement - ISDA Provision|single agreement]]” concept, which is not difficult to articulate — all our swaps net down to a single exposure | [[Netting opinion|Netting opinions]] are the same: there has not been an insolvency practitioner on the planet in the last forty years who has for an instant considered challenging the “[[Single Agreement - ISDA Provision|single agreement]]” concept, which is not difficult to articulate — all our swaps net down to a single exposure — right? Yet, so ghastly are the dread phantoms that might alight upon the head of anyone foolish enough to ask that plainly stupid question — and so comfortable are the incomes of those brave thousands engaged in the annual harvest of prophylactic [[Netting opinion|opinions]] giving it a sensible answer it barely deserves — that the industry tolerates a multi-million dollar annual expenditure without a second thought. | ||
By contrast, a [[confidentiality agreement]] is part of the traditional pre-trade appendage-measuring ritual of the pea-cocks and pea-hens of finance. You ''have'' to do | By contrast, a [[confidentiality agreement]] is part of the traditional pre-trade appendage-measuring ritual of the pea-cocks and pea-hens of finance. You ''have'' to do this; NDAs are meant to ''look'' fierce, but no-one is ever seriously ''hurt'' by them, and nor does anyone achieve much of lasting value out of them either. They’re a comfy part of the cosmic pantomime that is a career in financial services. | ||
Even so, the abstract ''legal'' points of an NDA can be intricate — the world is awash with NDA templates riddled with schoolboy errors — though, since nothing of any commercial moment has ever depended on an NDA, the howlers persist: the people — and machines — engaged to process them need no great acumen, so we should not expect anything else. | |||
Thus, [[Confidentiality agreement|NDA]]s — even for secret-squirrel event-driven [[family office]] types — rarely get past 5 or 6 pages, and are generally cleared in days. If you get stuck on one for more than a week, it will be some other problem the business guys don’t want to face that they are blaming on the NDA. | Thus, [[Confidentiality agreement|NDA]]s — even for secret-squirrel event-driven [[family office]] types — rarely get past 5 or 6 pages, and are generally cleared in days. If you get stuck on one for more than a week, it will be some other problem the business guys don’t want to face that they are blaming on the NDA. | ||
So there are local maxima and minima at play. An [[NDA]], however important, complicated, and regardless of what fanciful things you bolt onto it ([[Exclusive licence|exclusivity]], [[non-solicitation]], restraint of trade, punitive damages and so on) may generate | So there are local maxima and minima at play. An [[NDA]], however important, complicated, and regardless of what fanciful things you bolt onto it ([[Exclusive licence|exclusivity]], [[non-solicitation]], restraint of trade, punitive damages and so on) may generate a few thousand pounds in billings, but even that is pushing beyond sensible expectation. With a syndicated bond issue, on the other hand, you can write a ticket to the moon. | ||
This is why most [[magic circle law firm]]s do not have “confidentiality departments” as such — everyone muddles along as best they can — but devote entire floors to [[Debt securities|debt capital markets]]. | This is why most [[magic circle law firm]]s do not have “confidentiality departments” as such — everyone muddles along as best they can — but devote entire floors to [[Debt securities|debt capital markets]]. | ||