82,910
edits
Definitions: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''To create a new technical expression that doesn’t otherwise have any meaning''': Let’s say US accounting rules require an investor has the right to exchange its asset-backed security for the beneficial interest in the assets underlying the note. (Well, you never know, right?) You might call this the “BIE Option”. Sure, it’s confusing, but no more confusing than the actual obligation in the first place. | *'''To create a new technical expression that doesn’t otherwise have any meaning''': Let’s say US accounting rules require an investor has the right to exchange its asset-backed security for the beneficial interest in the assets underlying the note. (Well, you never know, right?) You might call this the “BIE Option”. Sure, it’s confusing, but no more confusing than the actual obligation in the first place. | ||
*To gather together disparate concepts into a single expression and it would not otherwise be obvious. | *To gather together disparate concepts into a single expression and it would not otherwise be obvious. | ||
''' | ===When ''not'' to use definitions=== | ||
When the defined term is obvious. Everyone knows that the [[EU]] means the [[European Union]]. Everyone knows [[MiFID 2]] means. Everyone (right?) knows what [[ERISA]] means. Especially when the proposition sought to be achieved is not in the slightest bit controversial in the first place. Take the dear old financial collateral regulations, which impose sensible standardisations and reduction of pointless formalities for registering security interest on financial assets. Everyone knows what they are, everyone likes, them, everyone agrees they save time, effort and [[box-ticking]] angst. So does this markup at any value to anyone in the world, in any way whatsoever? | |||
{{quote|this security interest constitutes a financial collateral arrangement as defined in the Financial Collateral Regulations {{insert|(No. 2) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3226)(as amended from time to time (the “'''Financial Collateral Regulations'''”)}}}} | |||
I humbly submit it does not. Especially since, notwithstanding all that towering anality, the miserable blighter didn’t even get it right. It is the “The Financial Collateral ''Arrangements'' (No.2) Regulations 2003”. ''Twat''. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||