Template:20 days notice ISDA: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Now, this is deep [[ISDA]] lore. It is of the First {{sex|Men}}<ref>I know, I know — ''or'' women, but that spoils the Game of Thrones reference, you know?</ref>. As such — since they didn’t have a written tradition back in 1986; since legends were passed down orally from father to son<ref>See footnote 1 [[and/or]] get a life.</ref> and much has been lost to vicissitude and contingency — it is not a subject on which there is much commentary: That dreadful [[FT book about derivatives]] sagely notes that, usually, much ''less'' notice is given than 20 days (I mean, you don’t ''say'') but doesn’t give a reason for this curious outer bound, in the same way it doesn’t give a reason for much else in the {{isdama}} despite costing a monkey and that being its express purpose. Nor for that matter does the official ISDA User’s Guide to the 2002 {{isdama}}. | Now, this is deep [[ISDA]] lore. It is of the First {{sex|Men}}<ref>I know, I know — ''or'' women, but that spoils the Game of Thrones reference, you know?</ref>. As such — since they didn’t have a written tradition back in 1986; since legends were passed down orally from father to son<ref>See footnote 1 [[and/or]] get a life.</ref> and much has been lost to vicissitude and contingency — it is not a subject on which there is much commentary: That dreadful [[FT book about derivatives]] sagely notes that, usually, much ''less'' notice is given than 20 days (I mean, you don’t ''say'') but doesn’t give a reason for this curious outer bound, in the same way it doesn’t give a reason for much else in the {{isdama}} despite costing a monkey and that being its express purpose. Nor for that matter does the official ISDA User’s Guide to the 2002 {{isdama}}. | ||
One is just expected to ''know''. Yet, in point of fact, no-one seems to. | One is just expected to ''know''. Yet, in point of fact, no-one seems to. And no-one wants to risk looking stupid by asking, right? | ||
Well, companions, just not knowing things is not how we contrarians roll. We ''like'' looking stupid. It is flattering in some lights. So, in the absence of a credentialised, plausible reason, let us ''speculate''. | Well, companions, just not knowing things is not how we contrarians roll. We ''like'' looking stupid. It is flattering in some lights. So, in the absence of a credentialised, plausible reason, let us ''speculate''. | ||