83,056
edits
Template:Gmsla equivalence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Now here’s a funny thing. In the {{2000gmsla}}, there were ''four'' defined terms relating to the {{gmslaprov|Securities}} and {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} that pass between the parties to a [[stock loan]], all of them [[noun]]s: | Techy linguistic aside: Now here’s a funny thing. In the {{2000gmsla}}, there were ''four'' defined terms relating to the {{gmslaprov|Securities}} and {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} that pass between the parties to a [[stock loan]], all of them [[noun]]s: | ||
*{{gmslaprov|Securities}} | *{{gmslaprov|Securities}} | ||
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}} | *{{gmslaprov|Collateral}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}} | *{{gmslaprov|Collateral}} | ||
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} | *{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} | ||
This means you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” on the {{2000gmsla}} to the less offensive “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or their {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}s” in the {{gmsla}}.<ref>Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.</ref> | |||
Dare [[I]] say it: neat drafting, that person. | Dare [[I]] say it: neat drafting, that person. | ||