Template:Gmsla equivalence: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 4: Line 4:
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}
 
But under the {{2010gmsla}}, there are just ''three''; two shorter [[noun]]s and an [[adjective]]:  
Under the {{2010gmsla}}, by contrast, there are just ''three''; two shorter [[noun]]s and an [[adjective]]:  
*{{gmslaprov|Securities}}
*{{gmslaprov|Securities}}
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
*{{gmslaprov|Collateral}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}
*{{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}
This means  you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” which is fire-hosed throughout the {{2000gmsla}} to the less offensive “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or their {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}s” in the {{gmsla}}.<ref>Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.</ref>
This means  you can move from the utterly tiring “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}}, {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Securities}} or {{gmslaprov|Equivalent Collateral}}” which is fire-hosed throughout the {{2000gmsla}} to the less offensive “{{gmslaprov|Securities}}, {{gmslaprov|Collateral}} or their {{gmslaprov|Equivalent}}s” in the {{gmsla}}.<ref>Well,you could have, but the drafters didn’t.</ref>

Navigation menu