82,900
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::(ii) in respect of an {{euaprov|Allowance Option Transaction}}, the {{euaprov|Allowance Strike Price}} multiplied by the {{euaprov|Number of Allowances}} delivered on or before the {{euaprov|Delayed Delivery Date}} following the occurrence of a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}}; | ::(ii) in respect of an {{euaprov|Allowance Option Transaction}}, the {{euaprov|Allowance Strike Price}} multiplied by the {{euaprov|Number of Allowances}} delivered on or before the {{euaprov|Delayed Delivery Date}} following the occurrence of a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}}; | ||
:multiplied by: | :multiplied by: | ||
:(c) the {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Delay}}, divided by 360.<ref> | :(c) the {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Delay}}, divided by 360.<ref>Since {{icds}} elected to express a mathematical proposition on its own tortured prose, it is not clear ''what'' is meant to be divided by 360: the stray comma suggests maybe it is meant to be a denominator for the whole sum, but we think it makes more sense to divide only the {{euaprov|Cost of Carry Delay}} by 360, as that gets you an annualised day count fraction that the rest of the sum can be multiplied by. If you ignored the ambiguous comma, that is the most consistent with the paragraph layout. </ref> |