Template:Emissions Suspension summ: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Emissions Suspension summ (view source)

Revision as of 09:26, 16 April 2024

33 bytes removed , 16 April

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''[[Suspension - Emissions Annex Provision|Someone]]'' has got a mind infested by nefarious phantoms, readers: either the {{icds}} does, collectively, or the JC does. We are totally not ruling out the JC, to be clear. But this is too weird.
+{{drop|''S''|''omeone’s'' mind got}} infested by nefarious phantoms, readers: either those of the collected [[carbon squad]]s, or JC’s. We are not ruling out JC, to be clear. But this is too weird.
-A {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} happens when the official infrastructure falls over so that the parties can’t transfer Allowances to settle a {{euaprov|Transaction}}. It is the fault of neither party — therefore to be distinguished from a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}}, which generally will be. {{Suspension v Settlement Disruption}}
+A {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}} happens when the official infrastructure falls over so that the parties can’t transfer Allowances to settle a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}. It is the fault of neither party — therefore to be distinguished from a {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Deliver}}, which generally will be. {{Suspension v Settlement Disruption}}
-A curiosity to which the [[JC]] has not yet found a plausible answer is why there is a [[Cost of Carry Amount - Emissions Annex Provision|Cost of Carry]] adjustment for {{euaprov|Suspension Event}}s that run over the scheduled {{euaprov|Delivery Date}}, but not for other, ordinary {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}s (or for that matter, [[Failure to Deliver - Emissions Annex Provision|Failures to Deliver]]).
+A curiosity to which the [[JC]] has not yet found a plausible answer is why there is a [[Cost of Carry Amount - Emissions Annex Provision|Cost of Carry]] adjustment for {{{{{1}}}|Suspension Event}}s that run over the scheduled {{{{{1}}}|Delivery Date}}, but not for other, ordinary {{{{{1}}} Settlement Disruption Event}}s (or for that matter, [[Failure to Deliver - Emissions Annex Provision|Failures to Deliver]]).
-====There is no at-market termination provision at a Long-Stop ====
-Also, the “[[then I woke up and it was all a dream]]” method of resolving irreconcilable suspensions. Unlike for {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}, ISDA’s [[Carbon Squad]] did ''not'' provide for “Payment on Termination for Suspension Event”. We are baffled by this, as we have mentioned elsewhere: it defaults the position to one where the person who thought they had sold forward a risk finds, for reasons entirely beyond their control, that not only was that  risk transfer ineffective, but the risk has come about and the asset is, effectively worth zero. If you consider the position of someone who was, for example, financing someone else’s {{euaprov|Allowance}} allocation — hardly out of the question, since that is basically the point of a {{euaprov|Forward Purchase Transaction}} this is transparently the wrong outcome, since the Seller — the person who is borrowing against its Allowances — gets to keep the money. Madness.
+====There is no at-market termination provision at a “long-stop” ====
+Also, there is the “[[then I woke up and it was all a dream]]” method of resolving irreconcilable suspensions. Unlike for {{euaprov Settlement Disruption Event}}, The [[Carbon Squad]] did ''not'' provide for “Payment on Termination for Suspension Event”.
+We are baffled by this, as we have mentioned elsewhere: it defaults the position to one where the person who thought they had sold forward a risk finds, for reasons entirely beyond their control, that not only was that risk transfer ineffective, but the risk has come about and the asset is, effectively worth zero. If you consider the position of someone who was, for example, financing someone else’s {{{{{1}}}|Allowance}} allocation — hardly out of the question, since that is the point of a {{{{{1}}}|Forward Purchase Transaction}} — this is transparently the wrong outcome, since the Seller — the person who is borrowing against its Allowances — gets to keep the money. Madness.