Comments on: A New Term Is Born—”Backending” http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82928 Ken Adams Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:19:26 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82928 Art: Hmmm, you have a point. As I conceived it, "frontloading" refers to taking select deal terms from the body of the contract—price, product, term, and so on—and placing them at the top of the contract. By contrast, "backloading" refers to kicking entire provisions to the back. But as you note, sometimes you can have select provisions that are put at the back. I'd still like to use two different terms. Let me ponder. Ken Art: Hmmm, you have a point. As I conceived it, “frontloading” refers to taking select deal terms from the body of the contract—price, product, term, and so on—and placing them at the top of the contract. By contrast, “backloading” refers to kicking entire provisions to the back. But as you note, sometimes you can have select provisions that are put at the back. I’d still like to use two different terms. Let me ponder. Ken

]]> By: Art http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82924 Art Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:32:27 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82924 A good word should be thought up for both "frontloading" and "backending", as I am not sure that there is any difference in principle between the two - it seems little more than a question of how one shuffles one's pages. Aesthetically, I think a nice metaphor would be beter than co-opting a noun/adjective (or certainly two synonymous ones) into a verb, but I'm no poet myself. Either way, it is a useful concept. ISDA Master Agreements governing swap transactions are about 60 pages(?) of industry standard wording followed by 3 or 4 pages of terms that define how the agreement will work between those specific parties. This industry-wide approach will have saved untold amounts in legal fees over the years. ISDA Master Agreements have a further efficiency - the related (but distinct) concept of the "framework agreement". Individual swap transactions are all carried out in accordance with the overall, single ISDA Master Agreement entered into by the parties at the outset of the relationship. This is probably even better than frontloading/backending when repeating similar transactions between the same parties. A good word should be thought up for both “frontloading” and “backending”, as I am not sure that there is any difference in principle between the two – it seems little more than a question of how one shuffles one’s pages. Aesthetically, I think a nice metaphor would be beter than co-opting a noun/adjective (or certainly two synonymous ones) into a verb, but I’m no poet myself.

Either way, it is a useful concept. ISDA Master Agreements governing swap transactions are about 60 pages(?) of industry standard wording followed by 3 or 4 pages of terms that define how the agreement will work between those specific parties. This industry-wide approach will have saved untold amounts in legal fees over the years.

ISDA Master Agreements have a further efficiency – the related (but distinct) concept of the “framework agreement”. Individual swap transactions are all carried out in accordance with the overall, single ISDA Master Agreement entered into by the parties at the outset of the relationship. This is probably even better than frontloading/backending when repeating similar transactions between the same parties.

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82614 Ken Adams Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:47:36 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82614 D.C.: I disagree. Giving a phenomenon a name is a first step in understanding how it truly works. And giving it a convenient label makes any analysis more readable. That's why <em>MSCD</em> is full of terminology that I invented. Ken D.C.: I disagree. Giving a phenomenon a name is a first step in understanding how it truly works. And giving it a convenient label makes any analysis more readable. That’s why MSCD is full of terminology that I invented. Ken

]]> By: D. C. Toedt http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82454 D. C. Toedt Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:54:11 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82454 This might strike some as a solution in search of a problem .... This might strike some as a solution in search of a problem ….

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82375 Ken Adams Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:32:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82375 Mac, Jeff: In this context I think catchyness is more important than symmetry. Somehow, for me "backloading" conjures up inapposite associations. And as for dirtiness, I'm not sure what to say about "rearloading" :-) . By contrast, "back-end" is an established adjective, although in a different context. But I'm open to persuasion. Jeff, note that putting the definition section at the front doesn't constitute frontloading, which occurs when you put key provisions at the very top of a contract, generally in tabular form. Ken Mac, Jeff: In this context I think catchyness is more important than symmetry. Somehow, for me “backloading” conjures up inapposite associations. And as for dirtiness, I’m not sure what to say about “rearloading” :-) . By contrast, “back-end” is an established adjective, although in a different context. But I’m open to persuasion.

Jeff, note that putting the definition section at the front doesn’t constitute frontloading, which occurs when you put key provisions at the very top of a contract, generally in tabular form.

Ken

]]> By: Jeff G http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82374 Jeff G Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:28:51 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82374 Ken: For someone who likes clean language, selecting two almost-synonyms, "back" and "end", and jamming them together, just seems a little dirty. :) If putting the defs at the front is frontloading, then I think putting a bunch of terms in schedules at the end would be rearloading. Ken: For someone who likes clean language, selecting two almost-synonyms, “back” and “end”, and jamming them together, just seems a little dirty. :)

If putting the defs at the front is frontloading, then I think putting a bunch of terms in schedules at the end would be rearloading.

]]> By: Mac http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82373 Mac Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:22:55 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82373 Just as we want parallel construction in our writing, doesn't parallel construction dictate "backloading" or "endloading"? Just as we want parallel construction in our writing, doesn’t parallel construction dictate “backloading” or “endloading”?

]]> By: mike http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/comment-page-1/#comment-82362 mike Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:46:28 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/02/20/backending/#comment-82362 I thought when I googled for "backending" I might end up with some really inappropriate sites. I was mildly surprised that I did not. I thought when I googled for “backending” I might end up with some really inappropriate sites. I was mildly surprised that I did not.

]]>