Bit of both I imagine. They have had way too much exposure for years now. Merkel won’t let them fail but they are thoroughly fooked in their present structure. They’ve had a black hole, mainly old trades and derivatives of billions for years, but despite promising more disclosure they just clammed up and haven’t given full figures. $120bn is just the tip of the iceberg.
The story of DB is a strange one. buying Bankers Trust Company was intended to achieve a European, non-uk competitor to the US players JPM, Goldman, BOA etc. But a few things happened.
First, they did not take the difficult decisions in 2008 et seq, carrying their weaknesses in the balance sheet and day to day operational activities, while still operating in an austere and critical European market including a very hostile UK regulatory, political and customer environment. German management did not appreciate how strong, post collapse, anti-bank sentiment was in the UK market.
Second the management of the bank did not seem properly to grasp the control environment nettle, lumbering from reg enforcement to enforcement, fine to fine without putting things right (no UK bank style mea culpa refit).
Third, the cost of Structural Reform (ring fence) then Brexit related restructure has been huge but not really to any bottom line benefit.
fourth, German Govt philosophy has been that there must be a Deutsche Bank at all costs but because they are a responsible EU government they have not underpinned and meddled with the market. They’ve just given political nudges which have caused the board and management to plod on coz the Chancellor says so. They’ve not therefore pruned enough of the business nor maxed investment in any part of it, just tolled it.
Fifth, the world has hung on for the Commerzbank takeover that everyone except Commerzbank and Deutsche were talking about. Would always be catastrophic for C and D but this prevailing weather has led people to believe all would be sorted out via M&A so no worries. Wrong.
Not that I’m aware of, it just means option, future or warrant on a product that has an underlying asset value like a commodity or currency. Lots of these were taken and bonuses paid but they then left DB in the frame when the value later tanked.
DB is a wonderful study in socialism, where capital accrues in far greater amount to workers than to shareholders (skewed by investment bank arm undoubtedly) and the state props up endlessly.
Well that’s how I, probably wrongly, have always understood it. I’m no great market expert but I read a fair bit about DB back when I was working with them on a few joint m&a projects.
"workers of the world unite! cast down the shackles of capitalist and the rentiers"
that is a chant in support of bankers bonuses and executive pay while reducing the amount of dividends paid to little old ladies
(I suppose they would say that all works out because tax rates will be 90% and so who needs dividends when they have 100% triple lock pension provision)
FYI americans dont really "get" security - merely viewing it as a sort of first dibs but never bothering to enforce it. Except with financial collateral for derivatives (in short, cash vollateral etc set off outside c.11 ambit). And that lead to the EU implementing the financial collateral directive (badly) because they didnt really understand what the boll9cking bollocks the us regime was for or what derivatives were.
not understanding what US created structured finance products were/are has not been a barrier to german and french banks piling in.
You are completely right supes, a proprietary right in an asset which can be appropriated following contractual default (and which falls outwith the estate of the defaulter for other creditors) is definitely not security. No sir.
The title to cash passes with possession under English law. There is no need to perfect it, if it has been paid to you then it is yours. There is no question of appropriation.
You have a contractual obligation to return it, but if a collateral holder goes bankrupt then the collateral poster is shit out of luck as an unsecured creditor.
Under New York law or a Japanese law pledge arrangement sure you can call it security if you want. Same for an ISDA Credit Support Deed. But collateral posted under an English law Credit Support Annex is not "security". It is full title transfer.
If the derivatives are subject to the mandatory clearing obligation, isn't the security position wrt collateral going to be dependent on the CCP's clearing rules and the insolvency law in the jurisdiction where the CCP is based?
There is no need to redeem. Full unencumbered title transfers the moment the collateral is paid. The collateral holder does not need for there to be a default before it takes full transfer of title.
Cash collateral under an English law CSA does not need to be held in segregated accounts. It can be immediately rehypothicated without any input from the collateral poster whatsoever. There is no tracing, there is no trust. Full title passes when it is posted. The poster retains only a contractual right to a repayment according to the terms of the agreement. There are no equitable principles involved at all. it is a purely contractual arrangement.
The CSA to a master agreement is simply a transaction under the ISDA. It is if anything a prepayment of the final settlement amount of the contract.
it's Ok Wang, you aren't the first finance type to not understand how the docs work. I'll happily take you through the docs over a pint some day when I'm in London.
And FAOD, and because I've grown bored of this I am talking specifically about garden variety mark to market posting of collateral/variation margin under an English law ISDA Credit Support Annex. I am not talking about Japanese pledges or IM seg under BCBS Iosco.
Just plain old daily variation margin/collateral under and English law CSA.
Dude, when I need a waiter to badly explain the fundamental concepts of contract and equity, you will deffo be on my list. after I've called an LBC phone in.*
*ps am not a "finance" type am a "can read properly" type
1. Supes has it. Always impressive to find a lawyer who actually understands this stuff.
2. I thought Tecco used to be some sort of hedge fund supremo? There seem to be some very large gaps in his knowledge of derivatives if this is the case,
1) A title transfer collateral arrangement is not "security".
2) A master agreement creates a net exposure, which =/= gross exposure.
3) A notional amount (ie the basis for a calculation) does not represent an exposure, net or gross.
1 and 2 above are supported by detailed, reasoned legal opinions (and often legislation) prepared by A&O and other firms which kind of know their way around this, maybe just a little.
3 should be evident to anyone with more than 3 brain cells.
But back to DB - miserable khunts won't let me reset my mortgage (or refinance), even at the cost of paying (or capitalising) the massive break costs I'd owe them.
I shall indeed give it up, safe in the knowledge that u fookwits will keep filling out the blanks in square brackets in these turdesque contracts without bothering to read them.
heh. Fair call. 90% of derivatives deals I've worked on (which, on the 3-brain-cell analysis above is probably a couple of hundred billion worth), I haven't even seen the underlying master agreement.
Seeing 1000 turds over 10 years isnt that impressive tbf. that's 100 turds a year which is really quite low and suggests a fibre deficiency. and that's before you factor in poo from dogs, cats, rabbits (not sure rabbit poo can be adequately described as turdage to be fair) etc.
Christ, they have moved quickly, loads in Tokyo and other Countries in Asia told to not come in, and teams in London told their passes will not be working from 11.30 AM.
I remember in 2011, I had friends in the IB arm at RBS, who were taken out to lunch, on the basis of a catch-up, and returned to find their stuff had been boxed up, passes cancelled, were escorted from reception with boxes and told they had been fired. Apparently it was a daily occurence. Classy
Good lord. Are we really having arguments about ISDA master agreements and The Financial Collateral Arrangements Regs (the latter of which they had to implement a second time because they Horlicksed it so badly)?
A few things:
- Financial collateral with title transfer is not security. At all. It's an American concept which the FCA Regs tried (and failed) to implement. It's not anything - it's up to member states to categorise it as near as they can under domestic laws to come up with a workable concept. Under English law, set-off is the nearest one.
- Even that is not without its problems, as under English law multilateral set-off simply doesn't work, without a common obligation between the various parties to set off against. The answer is a cross-guarantee, and that has been accepted for many years. Bilateral set-off works, but both bilateral and multilateral set-off under ISDA (and elsewhere) are contractual in nature. Equitable set-off is so obscure and limited in its application as to be virtually useless.
- Security financial collateral is a traditional security mechanism. It works, and really all the FCA regs do is (i) obviate the need to register with Companies House (which everybody outside the ISDA world does anyway, because they're too chickenshit not to) and (ii) allow enforcement notwitsanding an administration/CVA moratorium is in place.
I can't believe I've just written that. It's just.... sad.
Unfortunately you have to understand the concepts, which (as can be seen from the above) are quite involved.
The documentation itself is fairly simple once you've done the learning. But people charge a premium because (i) they have to recoup the costs of genning up but more importantly (ii) the reward needs to be commensurate with the risks. You really wouldn't want the high street conveyance model of pushing it down to the lowest paid paralegal (with no supervision) to deal with. You don't want that with real estate ether, frankly (as MJJ and I can bitterly attest from painful recent experience). Some shit really does need to be dealt with by the experts, even if it is fooking boring.
But these are boiler plate docs in the main right, not that disimilar to re-insurance contracts that never see the light of day unless there is a dispute following a substantial claim, which is almost non-existent now as over time and experience these contracts are better drafted now than they have ever been, hence if you are a Re-Insurance Lawyer contentionus or non-contentious, the work has all about dried up.
If you are in the right area it's not that boring either. Physical commodities derivatives involve all kinds of different areas from shipping to sections regimes to pipelines and power plants.
Doing rates and FX work for asset managers/PB is boring as fook tbf.
Yeah, I'm talking rates and FX stuff. Which is all I tend to see, as I sit within a banking and corporate insolvency team. MJJ probably sees the sexy stuff.
They can, and largely do, but if you need a netting opinion following the new constitution in Kenya, you are better off going to external counsel.
Similarly, there have been huge changes in the regulation of derivatives over the last ten years and most in house counsel tend to take a very specific commercial view of their own book. External counsel can help formulate an approach that conforms commercial and operational realities to the new regulatory regimes.
Brexit has required a huge amount of help from external counsel, as did the phasing in of the global margin rules.
Exactly. In a bid to save costs, banks have slimmed down their legal function (as it is not business generative) and capped pay and (by the back door) prospects, which means that those left are often neither the brightest or best. Hence all the money they saved on personnel now goes to external counsel. D'oh.
if it sounds like security, substitutes for security and acts like security, u can call it whatever the fck u want, but it’s still just a form of security
i prefer the word “bondage”
these are all variants of bondage, in the broadest sense
Nah, the docs are almost aways done in house, with external counsel usually just advising on particular jurisdictional or regulatory issues.
----
And this...
External firms will generally only be doing the master docs if:
- it's something funky like a securitisation which has hideous (and constantly changing) rating agency requirements;
- it's incidental to advising on the underlying transaction (ie you're advising on a transaction and it just so happens that there isn't an existing MA in place, maybe because you're setting up an SPV for the purpose); or
- you're acting for the end user and they don't know their way around.
Otherwise, the in-house negotiators are better set up for the standard docs, and it's the bespoke transactions done under them that get briefed out.
DB staff compensation has been huge over the last ten years. DB has lost money every year - that’s not what the accounts said but it is implicit in them setting up a huge “bad bank” today into which they will pile all the loans and trades that have gone wrong.
Effectively, the shareholders, the customers and the German taxpayer will make good the losses in the bad bank.
This has been a huge exercise in upper-middle-class socialism, transferring money from shareholders, customers and taxpayers to the bank’s useless but highly paid employees.
and back to the topic, the paper tells me today that:
"Deutsche Bank is seeking to save one of its lasting legacies in Australian equities, the corporate equity derivative."
That's the space I've seen DB many times over the years, and the sort of deals that aren't just form-filling done in-house. Highly strategic for clients and incredibly profitable for banks.
Blimey, a RoF thread peppered with opinionated statements from chippy people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Who'd have thunk it?
Good luck to the people being made redundant. Hopefully it will not be too long before they find jobs again.
0
0
Bit of both I imagine. They have had way too much exposure for years now. Merkel won’t let them fail but they are thoroughly fooked in their present structure. They’ve had a black hole, mainly old trades and derivatives of billions for years, but despite promising more disclosure they just clammed up and haven’t given full figures. $120bn is just the tip of the iceberg.
0
0
DB has been a basket case for years. hopeless board
0
0
Has "derivatives" just become shorthand for "financial product that I don't understand"?
0
0
and that's not directed at you tecco. The NYT reporting talks about DB having "issued" high risk derivatives.
0
0
The story of DB is a strange one. buying Bankers Trust Company was intended to achieve a European, non-uk competitor to the US players JPM, Goldman, BOA etc. But a few things happened.
First, they did not take the difficult decisions in 2008 et seq, carrying their weaknesses in the balance sheet and day to day operational activities, while still operating in an austere and critical European market including a very hostile UK regulatory, political and customer environment. German management did not appreciate how strong, post collapse, anti-bank sentiment was in the UK market.
Second the management of the bank did not seem properly to grasp the control environment nettle, lumbering from reg enforcement to enforcement, fine to fine without putting things right (no UK bank style mea culpa refit).
Third, the cost of Structural Reform (ring fence) then Brexit related restructure has been huge but not really to any bottom line benefit.
fourth, German Govt philosophy has been that there must be a Deutsche Bank at all costs but because they are a responsible EU government they have not underpinned and meddled with the market. They’ve just given political nudges which have caused the board and management to plod on coz the Chancellor says so. They’ve not therefore pruned enough of the business nor maxed investment in any part of it, just tolled it.
Fifth, the world has hung on for the Commerzbank takeover that everyone except Commerzbank and Deutsche were talking about. Would always be catastrophic for C and D but this prevailing weather has led people to believe all would be sorted out via M&A so no worries. Wrong.
It’s just not a very good business
0
2
Not that I’m aware of, it just means option, future or warrant on a product that has an underlying asset value like a commodity or currency. Lots of these were taken and bonuses paid but they then left DB in the frame when the value later tanked.
0
0
DB is a wonderful study in socialism, where capital accrues in far greater amount to workers than to shareholders (skewed by investment bank arm undoubtedly) and the state props up endlessly.
It's basically a blueprint of Corbynism
0
0
But that's not really how derivatives work.
0
0
Well that’s how I, probably wrongly, have always understood it. I’m no great market expert but I read a fair bit about DB back when I was working with them on a few joint m&a projects.
0
0
So under Corbynisn investment bankers get fat bonuses at the taxpayers expense? Cool. I'm starting to get the appeal.
0
0
Though it does seem a bit BAU. There must be a catch somewhere.
0
0
Always laugh when faux cognoscenti such as Supes sneer at others "not understanding " derivatives
DB has $43 TRILLION of derivatives exposure, which they naturally claim has been 'laid off"- hopefully better than Goldman did with AIG
They are now unloading $50 billion of this toxic waste into a 'bad bank "
This bad bank will be bailed out by EU taxpayers via the ECB and Bundesbank
0
0
Heh, speak of the devil.
0
0
Supes, can you explain what you mean? I thought they were just trading positions that had gone wrong. Happy to be corrected!
0
0
Massivefookwit08 Jul 19 09:12
So under Corbynisn investment bankers get fat bonuses at the taxpayers expense? Cool. I'm starting to get the appeal.
__________________________________________________________________________
yes, that's what I'm getting at
"workers of the world unite! cast down the shackles of capitalist and the rentiers"
that is a chant in support of bankers bonuses and executive pay while reducing the amount of dividends paid to little old ladies
(I suppose they would say that all works out because tax rates will be 90% and so who needs dividends when they have 100% triple lock pension provision)
0
0
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/kass-i-view-deutsche-bank-as-the-next-black-swan-in-europe--14795851
”....it has an opaque derivatives book of about €40trillion....”
0
0
Tecco, you need to understand the difference between net and gross exposure, which is something that tarquin simply does not.
You also need to understand the difference between notional amounts and actual exposure, which tarquin does not.
Then you need to understand how derivative positions are collateralised, which tarquin does not.
And lastly you need to understand how a broker/dealer or bank manages its derivative book, which tarquin does not.
There is really far too much to go into on a Monday morning RoF post.
0
0
I was with you until you got to the collateralisation. I’ll go read some more.
0
0
Good Lord. That Marx chap, to think I've had him completely wrong all these years.
0
0
you can start by reading the rest of the sentence that you pasted.
As for collateralisation you could start with a google search for BCBS Iosco Margin Requirements
0
0
The bit about £100bn of it being exposed? I was just discussing the fact that the €40trillion was real.
0
0
Tecco that's just how americans say "security".
0
0
Ohh ok.
0
0
FYI americans dont really "get" security - merely viewing it as a sort of first dibs but never bothering to enforce it. Except with financial collateral for derivatives (in short, cash vollateral etc set off outside c.11 ambit). And that lead to the EU implementing the financial collateral directive (badly) because they didnt really understand what the boll9cking bollocks the us regime was for or what derivatives were.
not understanding what US created structured finance products were/are has not been a barrier to german and french banks piling in.
0
0
apart from the fact that it isn't security
0
0
Heh
0
0
at least not under English law documentation.
0
0
You are completely right supes, a proprietary right in an asset which can be appropriated following contractual default (and which falls outwith the estate of the defaulter for other creditors) is definitely not security. No sir.
see me supra re americans
0
0
The title to cash passes with possession under English law. There is no need to perfect it, if it has been paid to you then it is yours. There is no question of appropriation.
You have a contractual obligation to return it, but if a collateral holder goes bankrupt then the collateral poster is shit out of luck as an unsecured creditor.
Under New York law or a Japanese law pledge arrangement sure you can call it security if you want. Same for an ISDA Credit Support Deed. But collateral posted under an English law Credit Support Annex is not "security". It is full title transfer.
0
0
Transfer of full title with an ability to redeem? yeah sounds nothing like security.
*ignores what a legal mortgage is*
*ignores chose in action point*
*ignores point about segregated accounts, tracing and quistclose trusts*
0
0
*ignores first google hit for 'definition of collateral*
0
0
If the derivatives are subject to the mandatory clearing obligation, isn't the security position wrt collateral going to be dependent on the CCP's clearing rules and the insolvency law in the jurisdiction where the CCP is based?
0
0
Sorry Wang, but you are wrong.
There is no need to redeem. Full unencumbered title transfers the moment the collateral is paid. The collateral holder does not need for there to be a default before it takes full transfer of title.
Cash collateral under an English law CSA does not need to be held in segregated accounts. It can be immediately rehypothicated without any input from the collateral poster whatsoever. There is no tracing, there is no trust. Full title passes when it is posted. The poster retains only a contractual right to a repayment according to the terms of the agreement. There are no equitable principles involved at all. it is a purely contractual arrangement.
The CSA to a master agreement is simply a transaction under the ISDA. It is if anything a prepayment of the final settlement amount of the contract.
0
0
I was hoping to ignore clearing, Goose. Tecco is confused enough as it is.
0
0
You are not the first isda doc gimp who doesnt understand their own docs. You are probably not the first who cant spell hypothecate.
0
0
I'll take the ad hominem as an admission of defeat.
I get that if your only tool is a hammer than every problem looks like a nail, but derivative documentation is not the same as loan documentation.
0
0
*watches supes run all the way to the supreme court crying "but this is how it was meant to work"*
*again*
0
0
it's Ok Wang, you aren't the first finance type to not understand how the docs work. I'll happily take you through the docs over a pint some day when I'm in London.
0
0
And FAOD, and because I've grown bored of this I am talking specifically about garden variety mark to market posting of collateral/variation margin under an English law ISDA Credit Support Annex. I am not talking about Japanese pledges or IM seg under BCBS Iosco.
Just plain old daily variation margin/collateral under and English law CSA.
0
0
God this sort of work sounds so so so fooking dull.
0
0
Dude, when I need a waiter to badly explain the fundamental concepts of contract and equity, you will deffo be on my list. after I've called an LBC phone in.*
*ps am not a "finance" type am a "can read properly" type
0
0
now now, Wang. mind your blood pressure.
0
0
Two observations.
1. Supes has it. Always impressive to find a lawyer who actually understands this stuff.
2. I thought Tecco used to be some sort of hedge fund supremo? There seem to be some very large gaps in his knowledge of derivatives if this is the case,
0
0
What Supes said in every single post.
1) A title transfer collateral arrangement is not "security".
2) A master agreement creates a net exposure, which =/= gross exposure.
3) A notional amount (ie the basis for a calculation) does not represent an exposure, net or gross.
1 and 2 above are supported by detailed, reasoned legal opinions (and often legislation) prepared by A&O and other firms which kind of know their way around this, maybe just a little.
3 should be evident to anyone with more than 3 brain cells.
0
0
I have never worked, nor made claim to work on any matter relating to hedge funds.
Private Equity M&A all the way, with a bit of AIM early in my legal career.
0
0
But back to DB - miserable khunts won't let me reset my mortgage (or refinance), even at the cost of paying (or capitalising) the massive break costs I'd owe them.
Khunts.
0
0
I shall indeed give it up, safe in the knowledge that u fookwits will keep filling out the blanks in square brackets in these turdesque contracts without bothering to read them.
0
0
heh. Fair call. 90% of derivatives deals I've worked on (which, on the 3-brain-cell analysis above is probably a couple of hundred billion worth), I haven't even seen the underlying master agreement.
0
0
I've seen probably around a thousand over the last ten years
0
0
What in the name of Fanny Craddock is wrong with you people.
Having an argument online is quite sad anyway.
But having a legal argument online is tragic.
An online legal argument between lawyers on this subject is really fooking amazingly tragic.
This confirms my view that insolvency etc is for spazzers. There is equal ignominy in being ignorant and knowledgeable in the subject.
0
0
Heh!
0
0
S'true, dat.
Not like tax,
Tax is for Adonises.
Adonisi?
Adomiums?
Adenoids?
Tax is for Adenoids.
0
0
sux to be you, m7.
0
0
(to supes)
0
0
Seeing 1000 turds over 10 years isnt that impressive tbf. that's 100 turds a year which is really quite low and suggests a fibre deficiency. and that's before you factor in poo from dogs, cats, rabbits (not sure rabbit poo can be adequately described as turdage to be fair) etc.
0
0
I really wish we could stop with the autism jokes.
0
0
I’m not really that easily offended tbf, I put up with a lot.
0
0
Probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on Rof. Possibly an unpopular view but I’ll take it!
0
0
Christ, they have moved quickly, loads in Tokyo and other Countries in Asia told to not come in, and teams in London told their passes will not be working from 11.30 AM.
I remember in 2011, I had friends in the IB arm at RBS, who were taken out to lunch, on the basis of a catch-up, and returned to find their stuff had been boxed up, passes cancelled, were escorted from reception with boxes and told they had been fired. Apparently it was a daily occurence. Classy
0
0
Good lord. Are we really having arguments about ISDA master agreements and The Financial Collateral Arrangements Regs (the latter of which they had to implement a second time because they Horlicksed it so badly)?
A few things:
- Financial collateral with title transfer is not security. At all. It's an American concept which the FCA Regs tried (and failed) to implement. It's not anything - it's up to member states to categorise it as near as they can under domestic laws to come up with a workable concept. Under English law, set-off is the nearest one.
- Even that is not without its problems, as under English law multilateral set-off simply doesn't work, without a common obligation between the various parties to set off against. The answer is a cross-guarantee, and that has been accepted for many years. Bilateral set-off works, but both bilateral and multilateral set-off under ISDA (and elsewhere) are contractual in nature. Equitable set-off is so obscure and limited in its application as to be virtually useless.
- Security financial collateral is a traditional security mechanism. It works, and really all the FCA regs do is (i) obviate the need to register with Companies House (which everybody outside the ISDA world does anyway, because they're too chickenshit not to) and (ii) allow enforcement notwitsanding an administration/CVA moratorium is in place.
I can't believe I've just written that. It's just.... sad.
0
0
Do fee-earners "draft" these docs , all day, every day through out their careers? I guess this is corporate support kinda stuff right?
0
0
Nah, the docs are almost aways done in house, with external counsel usually just advising on particular jurisdictional or regulatory issues.
0
0
Unfortunately you have to understand the concepts, which (as can be seen from the above) are quite involved.
The documentation itself is fairly simple once you've done the learning. But people charge a premium because (i) they have to recoup the costs of genning up but more importantly (ii) the reward needs to be commensurate with the risks. You really wouldn't want the high street conveyance model of pushing it down to the lowest paid paralegal (with no supervision) to deal with. You don't want that with real estate ether, frankly (as MJJ and I can bitterly attest from painful recent experience). Some shit really does need to be dealt with by the experts, even if it is fooking boring.
0
0
But these are boiler plate docs in the main right, not that disimilar to re-insurance contracts that never see the light of day unless there is a dispute following a substantial claim, which is almost non-existent now as over time and experience these contracts are better drafted now than they have ever been, hence if you are a Re-Insurance Lawyer contentionus or non-contentious, the work has all about dried up.
0
0
The hours are good, as is the pay.
If you are in the right area it's not that boring either. Physical commodities derivatives involve all kinds of different areas from shipping to sections regimes to pipelines and power plants.
Doing rates and FX work for asset managers/PB is boring as fook tbf.
0
0
*sanctions
0
0
Yeah, I'm talking rates and FX stuff. Which is all I tend to see, as I sit within a banking and corporate insolvency team. MJJ probably sees the sexy stuff.
0
0
Supes can't in house counsel deal with the regulatory and juristictional piece?
0
0
MJJ and I have had discussions on this topic, though our paths have never crossed professionally, oddly.
0
0
Anyway, the important thing is: how much tax have they paid? Hmmmm?
THE STATE NEEDS FEEDING.
0
0
Yeah, and NICS is the way to feed it. A 1% rise would more than cater for the drop in tax take through income tax in the last quarter.
0
0
They can, and largely do, but if you need a netting opinion following the new constitution in Kenya, you are better off going to external counsel.
Similarly, there have been huge changes in the regulation of derivatives over the last ten years and most in house counsel tend to take a very specific commercial view of their own book. External counsel can help formulate an approach that conforms commercial and operational realities to the new regulatory regimes.
Brexit has required a huge amount of help from external counsel, as did the phasing in of the global margin rules.
And sometimes you just need the extra bodies.
0
0
Exactly. In a bid to save costs, banks have slimmed down their legal function (as it is not business generative) and capped pay and (by the back door) prospects, which means that those left are often neither the brightest or best. Hence all the money they saved on personnel now goes to external counsel. D'oh.
0
0
Heh.
"You've taken a very specific commercial view of that".
Ouch.
0
0
ISDA MA is an anagram of I AM SAD
0
0
Yes, and ISDA Master Agreement is an anagram of "a garnished arse steam" or even "me stagnated arse ream".
0
0
I'd disagree with that assessment (I'd have to) round my shop. They're by far the best group of people I've ever worked with/for.
0
0
wot this thread really needs is chambo’s view on whether collateral is security
0
0
ps wot wang notm7 sed
if it sounds like security, substitutes for security and acts like security, u can call it whatever the fck u want, but it’s still just a form of security
i prefer the word “bondage”
these are all variants of bondage, in the broadest sense
0
0
I see no-one has grasped the nettle and asked the really difficult question...
How will all this affect FC Bayern in the transfer market
0
0
Supes08 Jul 19 15:34
Reply |
Report
Nah, the docs are almost aways done in house, with external counsel usually just advising on particular jurisdictional or regulatory issues.
----
And this...
External firms will generally only be doing the master docs if:
- it's something funky like a securitisation which has hideous (and constantly changing) rating agency requirements;
- it's incidental to advising on the underlying transaction (ie you're advising on a transaction and it just so happens that there isn't an existing MA in place, maybe because you're setting up an SPV for the purpose); or
- you're acting for the end user and they don't know their way around.
Otherwise, the in-house negotiators are better set up for the standard docs, and it's the bespoke transactions done under them that get briefed out.
0
0
(but what mutters said. I hate myself for getting involved in such a sad argument)
0
0
DB staff compensation has been huge over the last ten years. DB has lost money every year - that’s not what the accounts said but it is implicit in them setting up a huge “bad bank” today into which they will pile all the loans and trades that have gone wrong.
Effectively, the shareholders, the customers and the German taxpayer will make good the losses in the bad bank.
This has been a huge exercise in upper-middle-class socialism, transferring money from shareholders, customers and taxpayers to the bank’s useless but highly paid employees.
0
0
and back to the topic, the paper tells me today that:
"Deutsche Bank is seeking to save one of its lasting legacies in Australian equities, the corporate equity derivative."
That's the space I've seen DB many times over the years, and the sort of deals that aren't just form-filling done in-house. Highly strategic for clients and incredibly profitable for banks.
0
0
Blimey, a RoF thread peppered with opinionated statements from chippy people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Who'd have thunk it?
Good luck to the people being made redundant. Hopefully it will not be too long before they find jobs again.
Join the discussion