82,890
edits
An amount equal to: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Excellent [[celery]] that will fill out any drafting that looks a bit thin. It may look like — and is, truth be told — a pointless [[nominalisation]]<ref>in that it converts the strong verb “equals” to the weak verb "is" and the noun “an amount equal to”.</ref>, but this will not stop [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] defending it with their miserable little lives: | {{a}}Excellent [[celery]] that will fill out any drafting that looks a bit thin. It may look like — and is, truth be told — a pointless [[nominalisation]]<ref>in that it converts the strong verb “equals” to the weak verb "is" and the noun “an amount equal to”.</ref>, but this will not stop [[Mediocre lawyer|assiduous attorneys]] defending it with their miserable little lives: | ||
:''“...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.” '' | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
So, why add “[[an amount equal to]]”? | So, why add “[[an amount equal to]]”? | ||
[[Profound ontological uncertainty]] — something in which, like anal retentiveness, [[derivatives]] practitioners are uniformly steeped — is why. For, they will say, it | [[Profound ontological uncertainty]] — something in which, like anal retentiveness, [[derivatives]] practitioners are uniformly 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. | ||
Thus, a neat solution: add the phrase “[[an amount equal to]]”, which “monetises” this concept, turning it into something properly numeric<ref>“Properly numeric”? I mean really.</ref> that a fellow can articulate in pounds, shillings and pence. | Thus, a neat solution: add the phrase “[[an amount equal to]]”, which “monetises” this concept, turning it into something properly numeric<ref>“Properly numeric”? I mean really.</ref> that a fellow can articulate in pounds, shillings and pence. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Equivalent]] | |||
*[[Deem]] | |||
*[[Profound ontological uncertainty]] | *[[Profound ontological uncertainty]] | ||
*[[Celery]] | *[[Celery]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||