82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Excellent celery that will fill out any drafting that looks a bit thin. It may look like — and is, truth be told — a pointless nominalisation, but this will not st...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Excellent [[celery]] that will fill out any drafting that looks a bit thin. It may look like — and is, truth be told — a pointless [[nominalisation]], but this will not stop [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] defending it with their miserable little lives: | {{a|plainenglish|}}Excellent [[celery]] that will fill out any drafting that looks a bit thin. It may look like — and is, truth be told — a pointless [[nominalisation]]<ref>in that it converts the strong verb “equals” to the weak verb "is" and the noun “an amount equal to”.</ref>, but this will not stop [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] defending it with their miserable little lives: | ||
:''“...on each Payment Date the Floating Amount shall]], [[unless otherwise agreed]], be reduced by [[an amount equal to]] such rate as the [[Calculation Agent]] [[and/or]] [[Determination Agent]], [[as the case may be]], shall calculate or determine, [[as the case may be]], to be the Floating Rate | :''“...on each Payment Date the Floating Amount [[shall]], [[unless otherwise agreed]], be reduced by '''[[an amount equal to]]''' such rate as the [[Calculation Agent]] [[and/or]] [[Determination Agent]], [[as the case may be]], shall calculate or determine, [[as the case may be]], to be the Floating Rate Payer’s unadjusted cost of funding.” '' | ||
So, why add “[[an amount equal to]]”? | |||
Except that there’s a flaw in this logic: “equals” is a mathematical operator as surely as an addition or a subtraction | [[Profound ontological uncertainty]] — something in which, like anal retentiveness, [[derivatives]] practitioners are uniformly steeped — is why. For, they will say, it isn’t ''actually'' the borrower’s cost of funding you’re deducting — that is not a number but a (different) incorporeal, abstract concept which happens to ''resemble'' a number but is not one, and is therefore logically incapable of being deducted from something else by mathematical operation. | ||
Thus, a neat solution: add the phrase “[[an amount equal to]]”, which “monetises” this concept, turning it into something properly numeric<ref>“Properly numeric”? I mean really.</ref> that a fellow can articulate in pounds, shillings and pence. | |||
Except that there’s a flaw in this logic: “equals” is a mathematical operator as surely as is an addition or a subtraction. It is no more (or less) susceptible to manipulation by ethereal concepts. If you can’t deduct a cost of funding from a rate, you can’t calculate an amount equal to it, either. | |||
But ''of course'' you can deduct a cost of funding. Thus the forensic value of the expression “[[an amount equal to]]” is an amount equal to nothing. | But ''of course'' you can deduct a cost of funding. Thus the forensic value of the expression “[[an amount equal to]]” is an amount equal to nothing. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Equivalent]] | |||
*[[Deem]] | |||
*[[Profound ontological uncertainty]] | |||
*[[Celery]] | |||
{{ref}} |