Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(xii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Not hugely controversial, you would think, but it does sort of imply that the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} is itself a party to the transaction - otherwise ''both'' parties a..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Not hugely controversial, you would think, but it does sort of imply that the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} is itself a party to the transaction - otherwise ''both'' parties are {{eqderivprov|Non-Hedging Parties}}. But if so, then there's not really any need for the definition of {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} at all ... | [[12.9(a)(xii) - Equity Derivatives Provision|Not]] hugely controversial, you would think, but it does sort of imply that the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} is itself a party to the transaction - otherwise ''both'' parties are {{eqderivprov|Non-Hedging Parties}}. But if so, then there's not really any need for the definition of {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} at all ... | ||
Revision as of 13:07, 19 May 2022
Not hugely controversial, you would think, but it does sort of imply that the Hedging Party is itself a party to the transaction - otherwise both parties are Non-Hedging Parties. But if so, then there's not really any need for the definition of Hedging Party at all ...