83,229
edits
Potts opinion: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The Potts opinion is not without its critics — see [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1775852 Oskari Juurikkala’s impassioned arguments from 2011 in the Helsinki Law Journal] — in that but for this artificial distinction, the contracts can fulfil exactly the same role. These arguments become ever more pointed as the practical application of credit default swaps became clear: they are hedging tools, not speculative instruments; that is how people use them; for the most part the fact that one could use them to speculate does very little to advance the practical fact that in the real world, most people don’t. | The Potts opinion is not without its critics — see [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1775852 Oskari Juurikkala’s impassioned arguments from 2011 in the Helsinki Law Journal] — in that but for this artificial distinction, the contracts can fulfil exactly the same role. These arguments become ever more pointed as the practical application of credit default swaps became clear: they are hedging tools, not speculative instruments; that is how people use them; for the most part the fact that one could use them to speculate does very little to advance the practical fact that in the real world, most people don’t. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Credit Derivatives Anatomy]] | |||
*[[Equity v credit derivatives showdown]] | |||