Template:Gmsla equivalence: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Now here's a funny thing. In the {{2000gmsla}}, there were four defined terms relating to the assets and collateral that pass between the parties to a stock loan, all of them nouns: "{{gmslaprov|Securities}}", "{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}", "{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}}" and "{{eqderivprov|Equivalent Collateral}}".
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}}
Under the {{2010gmsla}}, by contrast there are three; two nouns and an adjective "{{eqderivprov|Securities}}", "{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}" and "{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}".
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
 
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}}
The difference being? Well, it's a neat linguistic one:
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}
:Under the {{2000gmsla}} - if you're the sort of person who gets upset about this kind of thing - to capture the concept of an asset or collateral under the loan whichever way it presently happens to be travelling, you would need to say "{{eqderivprov|Securities}} or {{eqderivprov|Equivalent Securities}}, as the case may be".
But under the {{2010gmsla}}, there are just ''three''; two shorter [[noun]]s and an [[adjective]]:
:In the {{2010gmsla}} you can capture the same concept by just saying "{{eqderivprov|Securities}}".  Because "{{eqderivprov|Equivalent}}" {{eqderivprov|Securities}} is not a distinct from {{eqderivprov|Securities}}, but a subset of it.
*{{gmslaprov|Securities}}
 
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
So, chapeau to those clever people at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}
 
This means  you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” which is fire-hosed throughout 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>
BUT THEN TAKE THAT CHAPEAU AWAY, because having been clever enough to do that, the {{2010gmsla}} is '''still''' studded with expressions like "Securities equivalent to the relevant Loaned Securities or Collateral, as the case may be," and "{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}". YOU FOOLS.

Latest revision as of 10:01, 20 December 2020

Techy linguistic aside: Now here’s a funny thing. In the 2000 GMSLA, there were four defined terms relating to the Securities and Collateral that pass between the parties to a stock loan, all of them nouns:

But under the 2010 GMSLA, there are just three; two shorter nouns and an adjective:

This means you can move from the utterly tiring “Securities, Collateral, Equivalent Securities or Equivalent Collateral” which is fire-hosed throughout the 2000 GMSLA to the less offensive “Securities, Collateral or their Equivalents” in the 2010 GMSLA.[1]

  1. ↑ Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Gmsla_equivalence&oldid=50716"