Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 1: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "The {{PAGENAME}} are intended to be used with the {{isdama}}. This is dreadful, leaden literature — but everyone has sort of put up with it, and got used to it. They were me..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[1 - Equity Derivatives Provision|If]] you are looking for literature to broaden your earthly perspective, or shine a torch into the dark crevices of the human condition, the {{eqdefs}} might not be the first volume you would pull off the shelf, but in its own way, in its Escheresque self-referencing reflexivity, it affords us an oblique perspective on the motivations of those who operate in the strange demi-monde of the international capital markets. | |||
Commonplaces of the sort any mug knows instinctively without needing to be told are said, said, and said again; abstrusities about which even the ''cognoscenti'' might like more elucidation — like what counts as a “{{eqderivprov|Dividend}}” — are left tantalisingly under-determined. Some parts — the calculation of {{eqderivprov|Dividend Amount}} — just don’t work at all, so the market has resorted to its own organic means of resolution (the [[JC]] has its own suggestions, too — see [[Dividend Amount - Equity Derivatives Provision|here]]). | |||
Latest revision as of 22:43, 5 August 2023
If you are looking for literature to broaden your earthly perspective, or shine a torch into the dark crevices of the human condition, the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions might not be the first volume you would pull off the shelf, but in its own way, in its Escheresque self-referencing reflexivity, it affords us an oblique perspective on the motivations of those who operate in the strange demi-monde of the international capital markets.
Commonplaces of the sort any mug knows instinctively without needing to be told are said, said, and said again; abstrusities about which even the cognoscenti might like more elucidation — like what counts as a “Dividend” — are left tantalisingly under-determined. Some parts — the calculation of Dividend Amount — just don’t work at all, so the market has resorted to its own organic means of resolution (the JC has its own suggestions, too — see here).