82,964
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Now here's a funny thing. In the {{2000gmsla}}, there were four defined terms relating to the assets and collateral that pass between the parties to a stock loan, all of them ...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Under the {{2010gmsla}}, by contrast there are three; two nouns and an adjective "{{eqderivprov|Securities}}", "{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}" and "{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}". | Under the {{2010gmsla}}, by contrast there are three; two nouns and an adjective "{{eqderivprov|Securities}}", "{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}" and "{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}". | ||
The difference | The difference being? Well, it's a neat linguistic one: | ||
: | :Under the {{gmsla2000}} - if you're the sort of person who gets upset about this kind of thing - to capture the concept of an asset or collateral under the loan whichever way it presently happens to be travelling, you would need to say "{{eqderivprov|Securities}} or {{eqderivprov|Equivalent Securities}}, as the case may be". | ||
:In the 2010 model, you can capture the same concept by saying "Securities" - because "Equivalent" Securities is not a distinct | :In the 2010 model, you can capture the same concept by saying "{{eqderivprov|Securities}}" - because "{{eqderivprov|Equivalent}}" {{eqderivprov|Securities}} is not a distinct category, but a subset of the first category. | ||
So, chapeau to those clever people at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. | So, chapeau to those clever people at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. |