Template:Gmsla equivalence: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}
This means  you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” on the {{2000gmsla}} to the less offensive “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or their {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}s” in the {{gmsla}}.<ref>Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.</ref>
This means  you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” which is fire-hosed throughout the {{2000gmsla}} to the less offensive “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or their {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}s” in the {{gmsla}}.<ref>Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.</ref>
 
Dare [[I]] say it: neat drafting, that person.

Revision as of 10:06, 17 June 2019

Techy linguistic aside: Now here’s a funny thing. In the 2000 GMSLA, there were four defined terms relating to the Securities and Collateral that pass between the parties to a stock loan, all of them nouns:

Under the 2010 GMSLA, by contrast, there are just three; two shorter nouns and an adjective:

This means you can move from the utterly tiring “Securities, Collateral, or Equivalent Securities or Equivalent Collateral” which is fire-hosed throughout the 2000 GMSLA to the less offensive “Securities, Collateral or their Equivalents” in the 2010 GMSLA.[1]

  1. Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.