Template:Emissions Cost of Carry Amount summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Ok the concept is this. :(i) you have your '''accrual rate''' over the period in question. This is, in all three formats, called the “{{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Rate}}”. :(ii) you have the '''accrual period''' over which the {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Rate}} is applied. This is called, in the ISDA, the {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Delay}} but in the EFET and the IETA is called the {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Calculation Period}}. :(iii) you have the '''quantity of affected Allowa..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What is going on here, then? | |||
Should there be a {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}}, the person meaning to deliver the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}}, and receive cash payment on date X cannot, and will therefore start to get anxious emails from her treasury department. Remember, at this point she wants cash, has ([[Q.E.D.]]) no interest in the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}}, and through no fault of her own is out of pocket. | |||
Therefore the {{{{{1}}}|Seller}} agrees to pay her a {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Amount}}. This is essentially interest at an agreed rate on the Cash Payment that was due, for the duration of the the {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}}. | |||
The funny thing is what happens if the {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}} has not lifted by the {{{{{1}}}|Long Stop Date}}. Here the transaction is deemed to be irretrievably broken — and, per the consensus of [[Carbon Squad]], the {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} should therefore be cancelled and just forotten about. Any amounts already paid must be refunded (except where {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} were delivered against those payments), and everyone walks away and pretends it never happened. This is the “[[then I woke up and it was all a dream]]” method of disruption resolution. | |||
This we find utterly ''extraordinary''. Your {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Amount}} accrues ... accrues ... accrues ... and then suddenly in a puff of illogic, on a completely arbitrary {{{{{1}}}|Long Stop Date}}, it just vanishes, along with, presumably, all the rest of the money you stumped up in good faith to finance some other so-and-so’s {{{{{1}}}|Allowance}} obligations. ''What on earth were they thinking?'' | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 22 November 2023
What is going on here, then?
Should there be a {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}}, the person meaning to deliver the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}}, and receive cash payment on date X cannot, and will therefore start to get anxious emails from her treasury department. Remember, at this point she wants cash, has (Q.E.D.) no interest in the {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}}, and through no fault of her own is out of pocket.
Therefore the {{{{{1}}}|Seller}} agrees to pay her a {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Amount}}. This is essentially interest at an agreed rate on the Cash Payment that was due, for the duration of the the {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}}.
The funny thing is what happens if the {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}} has not lifted by the {{{{{1}}}|Long Stop Date}}. Here the transaction is deemed to be irretrievably broken — and, per the consensus of Carbon Squad, the {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} should therefore be cancelled and just forotten about. Any amounts already paid must be refunded (except where {{{{{1}}}|Allowances}} were delivered against those payments), and everyone walks away and pretends it never happened. This is the “then I woke up and it was all a dream” method of disruption resolution.
This we find utterly extraordinary. Your {{{{{1}}}|Cost of Carry Amount}} accrues ... accrues ... accrues ... and then suddenly in a puff of illogic, on a completely arbitrary {{{{{1}}}|Long Stop Date}}, it just vanishes, along with, presumably, all the rest of the money you stumped up in good faith to finance some other so-and-so’s {{{{{1}}}|Allowance}} obligations. What on earth were they thinking?