Modifications etc. to legislation - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{gmslaanat|2.6}} | {{gmslaanat|2.6}} | ||
Before you say, “well duh, yeah, of course it does. I mean honestly —”, have a conversation with an ERISA lawyer. | Before you say, “well duh, yeah, of course it does. I mean honestly —”, have a conversation with an {{t|ERISA}} [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]], because it is exactly this fear — that reference to a statute might be to that statute at some point in the past, and not as it stands at today’s date — that confounds the industry’s heartfelt wish to apply [[close out]] netting to US pension plans. | ||
I’m not saying you’re ''wrong'' in your reaction — plainly, you’re not — but still it is always interesting to be confronted with the nonsensical paranoid | Look: I’m not saying you’re ''wrong'' in your reaction — plainly, you’re not — but still it is always interesting to be confronted with the nonsensical paranoid fears that haunt teh waking moments of well-paid financial markets specialists, all the same. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:55, 25 July 2019
|
GMSLA Anatomy™
|
Before you say, “well duh, yeah, of course it does. I mean honestly —”, have a conversation with an ERISA lawyer, because it is exactly this fear — that reference to a statute might be to that statute at some point in the past, and not as it stands at today’s date — that confounds the industry’s heartfelt wish to apply close out netting to US pension plans.
Look: I’m not saying you’re wrong in your reaction — plainly, you’re not — but still it is always interesting to be confronted with the nonsensical paranoid fears that haunt teh waking moments of well-paid financial markets specialists, all the same.