Would-level opinion: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Would-level opinion (view source)

Revision as of 13:35, 14 April 2023

280 bytes added , 14 April 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

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}}
+:—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 one’s arse is, formally, covered.
-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]].
+“Formally” because, in our fickle times, [[Der Sieg der Form über Substanz|form]] has vanquished [[Substance and form|substance]] to so great an extent that form is now all there is.
+''Until it isn’t''.
+The “would-level opinion” is a byword for ''safety''; it is [[plausible deniability]].
+It speaks to prudent diligence, [[res ipsa loquitur]], no (further) questions asked.
 ===Technical uses===