Equivalent: Difference between revisions

1,324 bytes removed ,  27 May 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 12: Line 12:
Nowadays, where all securities are held in electronic book-entry form, or on a [[blockchain]] or something like that,<ref>Actually, maybe it ''does'' mean something on a [[blockchain]]: each entry in the legible is its own distinct thing, defiantly [[non-fungible]], [[ontologically]], even if it ''is'' fungible ''financially''. Odd.</ref> this doesn’t really mean a great deal, but in the old days, when securities were printed on paper, it did. The only securities commonly printed on paper these days are bank notes: One British five pound note is equivalent to another British five pound note, but is not equivalent to a Jersey five pound note, because even though Jersey is in a currency union with sterling, the Jersey note is not legal tender in England.
Nowadays, where all securities are held in electronic book-entry form, or on a [[blockchain]] or something like that,<ref>Actually, maybe it ''does'' mean something on a [[blockchain]]: each entry in the legible is its own distinct thing, defiantly [[non-fungible]], [[ontologically]], even if it ''is'' fungible ''financially''. Odd.</ref> this doesn’t really mean a great deal, but in the old days, when securities were printed on paper, it did. The only securities commonly printed on paper these days are bank notes: One British five pound note is equivalent to another British five pound note, but is not equivalent to a Jersey five pound note, because even though Jersey is in a currency union with sterling, the Jersey note is not legal tender in England.


So why do we say “equivalent” and not just “the same”? Largely, to keep accountants happy. “The same” is narrower: it means ''exactly'' the same security or banknote that you were originally referring to: a different one that happens to be fungible with it, even though in all material respects identical, would not do.
{{equivalent vs identical}}
 
The reason accountants care has to do with making sure the original transfer was a valid, absolute [[title transfer]], so that the recipient can be confident it may freely deal with the security, and its only obligation is a debt claim back to the original transferor. If I give you a security by title transfer, but you must give me back ''precisely'' the security that I gave you — the very one; not just a fungible equivalent — then this suggests that I retain some claim to or ownership right over the original security I gave you. This in turn implies you are not free to deal with it, as in some way it remains mine: I have not fully transferred title to that security to you. By agreeing you may settle our debt by returning an ''equivalent'' security, it puts beyond doubt that you are free to deal with that security as you see fit, and when it comes to reversing out the transaction you can just go and buy in a security from the market, and we avoid the sort of anxiousness that can plague accountants.


Now, when it comes to return it, ''dilemma'': you’ve been mucking around with it. You don’t still ''have'' “it”. You could go and buy a ''new'' “it” and return that, but the ''exact old “it”'' they gave you — that’s goneski.  
Now, when it comes to return it, ''dilemma'': you’ve been mucking around with it. You don’t still ''have'' “it”. You could go and buy a ''new'' “it” and return that, but the ''exact old “it”'' they gave you — that’s goneski.