Whether the income streams are sold or the assets themselves is a semantic difference. I initially cautioned on the side of the derived streams due to some national sovereignty concerns. Since those have been entirely ignored, I'm fine to say the assets themselves.
Strength is not determined by how you act on some matter. It is determined by its breadth. This is a mild proposal under that paradigm.
The Facility cannot really contribute to systemic financial risk insofar as it has the backing of the government. Certainly, some policy actions may be less than optimal, but that would be contingent primarily on internal decision making.
The Facility should have discretion to act or not to act. The alternative creates moral hazard problems. The conditions of eligibility are declared. And the contractual terms of liquidity support are also contingent on policymakers. I think that isn't a problem. Regarding 3(c), the sale of equity capital would raise money. Or the sale of assets in return for cash would similarly raise money. Moreover, I would highly prefer that the Facility should receive treatment pari passu with senior preferred equity, since it would be government's (and formerly creditor's) money. But claimant structures aren't detailed in this resolution.
Erithaca, your comments should start with 'We', not 'Us'.
Essu Beti, if you want to play oppression or primitivity Olympics, this isn't the place. And anyone can create puppets that will win. Same thing to anyone who wants to play FT planned economy Olympics.
Banana, half the things you're describing are adjectives which are self-referential. "Risk transference mechanism" means a mechanism which transfers risk. The only thing which I think is actually unapt is 'financialise', which is new enough of a word that I've never seen it outside finance. But when I wake up and BBC is telling me about the UK Government selling a new tranche of RBS stock in the headline, this simply isn't incomprehensible.
CD, if you want to really use the Flesch-Kincaid tests, then that's not hard to game. There's a formula,
And (1) breaking up commas and clauses into new sentences and (2) introducing more short words is the easiest way to do that. But that ignores the more fundamental problem with it: applying this kind of test isn't dispositive with the amount of information that is given. If I applied something like this to Chinese, which has few syllables due to the use of tones, the most complicated sentences would receive significantly lower rankings than comparable ones in English. Similarly, the use of compound words in German (Oberstabsbootsmann for Master Chief Petty Officer seems reasonably egregious, scoring 67.4 against the English's 8.4) would massively inflate scores whilst doing little to increase the amount of information contained. The use of nominatives in finance does something similar.
