Template:Gmsla 11.7 comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.''' | '''But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.''' | ||
The 2000 GMSLA was slightly more dependent on LIBOR than its 2010 successor as can be seen in this {{diff|55633|57300}}. Changes are largely improvements: the 2010 assumes the parties will agree something else, relying on [[LIBOR]] only as a fallback (prescient in 2010!); it falls back to overnight and not one-month LIBOR (given the callable nature of stock loans that makes a lot more sense), and the 2000 version had a genuinely gruesome 44-line coda which seemed to be some sort of half-hearted attempt at linear interpolation for shorter periods which the 2010 version, by relying on the overnight rate, was able to jettison entirely with no great loss. | |||
Revision as of 11:22, 7 June 2021
In its headlong rush to pursue the path of least resistance, the tremendous opportunity the 2018 Pledge GMSLA presented to ISLA’s crack drafting squad™ for once and for all to rid this form of its unfortunate reference to LIBOR went missed. Pity really.
But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.
The 2000 GMSLA was slightly more dependent on LIBOR than its 2010 successor as can be seen in this comparison. Changes are largely improvements: the 2010 assumes the parties will agree something else, relying on LIBOR only as a fallback (prescient in 2010!); it falls back to overnight and not one-month LIBOR (given the callable nature of stock loans that makes a lot more sense), and the 2000 version had a genuinely gruesome 44-line coda which seemed to be some sort of half-hearted attempt at linear interpolation for shorter periods which the 2010 version, by relying on the overnight rate, was able to jettison entirely with no great loss.