82,387
edits
Netting opinion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A legal opinion — at the best of times a dreary, charmless and pointless affair — addressing the effectiveness in a given jurisdiction of close-out netting, one of...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
They tend to be long, academic, laden with hypotheticals, appealing to [[Latin]]ate principles of civil law and demanding of unusually skilled powers of comprehension and patience to wade through. | They tend to be long, academic, laden with hypotheticals, appealing to [[Latin]]ate principles of civil law and demanding of unusually skilled powers of comprehension and patience to wade through. | ||
Every [[netting opinion]] says the same thing: | |||
Every [[netting opinion]] says the same thing: that {{tag|netting}} is, ultimately, enforceable, because it would have no reason to exist if it said the contrary. But God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} in the shape of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]], plays a cruel cosmic joke on all [[inhouse lawyer]]s. By ''diktat'' of the latest [[Basel Accord]]) they must diligently read and draw reasoned conclusions from these God-forsaken tomes, so that their firm's financial controllers can recognize balance sheet reductions as a result. | |||
===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ||
Also, it is a fact, that no insolvency administrator, anywhere in the world, in the history of the world, has ever actually | Also, it is a fact, that no [[insolvency administrator]], anywhere in the world, in the history of the world, has ever actually successfully challenged the netting down of offsetting transactions under a derivative trading agreement — or so far as [[I|this commentator]] knows, even tried to — because that would be a patently stupid thing to do, even by accident. | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||