Would-level opinion: Difference between revisions

Would-level opinion (view source)

Revision as of 13:04, 13 April 2023

873 bytes added , 13 April 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|work|{{image|would|jpg|}}}}{{quote|“Would level” is the strongest degree of assurance that an attorney can provide when opining on bankruptcy matters.
-:—Legal isolation of transferred financial assets, PWC Viewpoint}} is meant to mean one has the highest possible degree of [[comfort]] things won’t go wrong, and therefore one won’t be fired, but over time and the vicissitudes of normal market practice, worn smooth by years of gentle polishing by the vicuña twill that houses a million well-heeled posteriors means, definitively, one will not be fired if things go wrong. It is plausible deniablility. It is evidence of due diligence, [[res ipsa loquitur]].
+:—Legal isolation of transferred financial assets, PWC Viewpoint}}
+A term of financial art: it once meant the highest possible degree of [[comfort]] things won’t go wrong, and therefore one won’t be fired — but worn smooth over time as all allocations of risk tend to be, by years of gentle polishing by the vicuña twill that houses a million well-heeled posteriors — these days really means one definitely will not be fired, even if things do go wrong, because your arse is covered. The “would-level opinion” is safety; it is plausible deniability. It speaks to prudent diligence, [[res ipsa loquitur]].
+===Technical uses===
+It has its technical uses, particularly when it comes to calculating capital charges. Did you really get that toxic waste off your balance sheet, for good, such that there really is no chance of it repeating on you, out of the blue, when you least expect it, as the whole market lurches into cataclysm. A would-level [[true sale opinion]] will say that you did; nothing else will do. Is it really the case that, in the wildest fantasies, a local insolvency court would respect and abide by your single agreement clause should your derivative counterparty go [[titten hoch]] with amounts due to it under different Transactions to those under which it owes you similar sums? Only a would-level [[netting opinion]] will do.
+{{sa}}
+*[[Legal opinion]]