An amount equal to: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
:''“...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]]”?
 
[[Profound ontological uncertainty]] — something in which, like anal retentiveness, derivatives practitioners tend to be 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. The neat solution: add the phrase “[[an amount equal to]]”, which “monetises” this concept, turning it into something properly numeric that a fellow can articulate in pounds and pence.
 
Properly numeric I mean really.


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.
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.
Line 12: Line 16:
*[[Profound ontological uncertainty]]
*[[Profound ontological uncertainty]]
*[[Celery]]
*[[Celery]]
{{ref}}
{{plainenglish}}
{{plainenglish}}