An amount equal to: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

An amount equal to (view source)

Revision as of 18:08, 29 December 2020

390 bytes added , 29 December 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ 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]]<ref>in that it converts the verb “equals” to the noun “an amount equal to”, 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 Payer's unadjusted cost of funding.”
+:''“...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.” ''
-Why add “[[an amount equal to]]”? [[Profound ontological uncertainty]] — something in which derivatives practitioners tend to be steeped. For it isn't actually the borrower’s cost of funding you’re deducting — that is a incorporeal, abstract concept, logically incapable of being deducted from something else by mathematical operation, where as [[an amount equal to]] monetizes this concept, and turns it into something you can articulate in pounds and pence.
+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 is. 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.
+[[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.
-{{seealso}}
+{{sa}}
+*[[Equivalent]]
+*[[Deem]]
 *[[Profound ontological uncertainty]]
 *[[Celery]]
-{{plainenglish}}
+{{ref}}