View source for Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.8(f)

{{Calculation agent versus determination agent}}
===''Two'' {{eqderivprov|Determining Parties}}?===
Yes, it does say this, but no, you shouldn’t go there. For a lengthy disquisition on why not, see the commentary to Section {{eqderivprov|12.7(c)}}.

===Fewer than ''one'' {{eqderivprov|Determining Party}}?===
But do at least try to have ''one'': [[the ’squad]], in their infinite wisdom — or perhaps indulging in some cosmic sense of humour, did not provide for a fallback should you neglect to appoint a {{eqderivprov|Determining Party}} in your {{eqderivprov|Confirmation}} at all (it would be nice if it defaulted to the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}}, of even the {{eqderivprov|Calculation Agent}}, so at least there was ''someone'' in charge of calculating what happens on an {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}}, but no. Otherwise it might make for some squeaky bottoms should things suddenly, collectively, go [[Tetas arriba|tetas arriba]], for there is no-one on hand to calculate the all-important {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}}. 

For those who do forget we can offer only moral support: in ''spirit'' — for whatever that is worth — it should be the person doing the hedging, but good luck persuading your client of that, when ''le monde est allé en enfer dans un panier du main'', everyone has their hair on fire etc etc.