by Adriatican » Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:01 pm
First and Third Prime Minister of the IFC
Fmr. Chair, and current Commissioner of ISEC (a W.A organization)
Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Yohannes
Lazarene Ambassador to the South Pacific and Europeia
by Grays Harbor » Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:34 pm
by Adriatican » Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:50 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Dollars is a RL reference and if included render this illegal. That is why trying to set specific arbitrary numbers is a tricky thing to try and do and best avoided. And trying to do so in “currency units” is just as bad as no two currencies trade at equal amounts. (Think Japanese Yen or Italian Lira vs. the US Dollar or Pound Sterling)
First and Third Prime Minister of the IFC
Fmr. Chair, and current Commissioner of ISEC (a W.A organization)
Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Yohannes
Lazarene Ambassador to the South Pacific and Europeia
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:02 pm
by Adriatican » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:18 pm
The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I might misunderstand, but does '- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.' mean that I cannot sell my company even if I want nothing to do with it anymore? Or even my stock in company XYZ, which I aquired just two days prior?
First and Third Prime Minister of the IFC
Fmr. Chair, and current Commissioner of ISEC (a W.A organization)
Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Yohannes
Lazarene Ambassador to the South Pacific and Europeia
by SherpDaWerp » Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:23 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:46 pm
Adriatican wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I might misunderstand, but does '- that no individual, commercial organization, or government entity can sell, on any market, open or closed, within a Member Nation, more than fifty-one percent of any particular holding or investment per year.' mean that I cannot sell my company even if I want nothing to do with it anymore? Or even my stock in company XYZ, which I aquired just two days prior?
It means you cannot divest entire options, but does allow for a majority of your holding (51 percent) to be divested, ending all legal; associations, responsibilities, liabilities, and authorities you may have had, that were associated with that option, in most jurisdictions.
The year cap would mean that 365 days from the date of sale, you would be able to sell the other 49 percent.
In the case that you haven’t sold 51 percent of any one holding, you may continue to divest from that holding, up until you hit the 51 percent threshold on that option, regardless of the sale date of previous divestments.
Thus, you needn’t worry about the year cap, until you hit the percentage threshold, and once you have, the threshold still ends your association with you option in most places, and nevertheless allows you to sell the rest of a given option after 365 days.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:58 pm
by Adriatican » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:50 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Adriatican wrote:
It means you cannot divest entire options, but does allow for a majority of your holding (51 percent) to be divested, ending all legal; associations, responsibilities, liabilities, and authorities you may have had, that were associated with that option, in most jurisdictions.
The year cap would mean that 365 days from the date of sale, you would be able to sell the other 49 percent.
In the case that you haven’t sold 51 percent of any one holding, you may continue to divest from that holding, up until you hit the 51 percent threshold on that option, regardless of the sale date of previous divestments.
Thus, you needn’t worry about the year cap, until you hit the percentage threshold, and once you have, the threshold still ends your association with you option in most places, and nevertheless allows you to sell the rest of a given option after 365 days.
OOC: Doesn't that wording rather imply a Zeno's Paradox of divestment? Once I've sold 51%, the remainder is now my entire investment or ownership stake, and thus after a year I can now sell only 51% of what's left - until the next year, when I can sell 51% of what's left of that... etc. Clarification of that shouldn't eat much of your character count.
First and Third Prime Minister of the IFC
Fmr. Chair, and current Commissioner of ISEC (a W.A organization)
Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Yohannes
Lazarene Ambassador to the South Pacific and Europeia
by Adriatican » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:53 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Strongly opposed. The provision having to do with fair market value is actually based on the presumption that there exists no private value, which is a preposterous assumption. The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.
First and Third Prime Minister of the IFC
Fmr. Chair, and current Commissioner of ISEC (a W.A organization)
Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Yohannes
Lazarene Ambassador to the South Pacific and Europeia
by Bananaistan » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am
Proposal basics (proposals must be written as the laws they become - the first sentence sets the whole up as a proposal); Metagaming ("bicameral nature of the World Assembly" and "Delegates" appear to be references to the Security Council and WA delegates - these cannot be mentioned in proposals)
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:12 am
Adriatican wrote:In actuality, and if you had read it, you’d see this entire resolution governs markets that fall under ISEC’s jurisdiction, and properly assumes that any all trading will result in an option finding its way into that jurisdiction.
by Kenmoria » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:22 am
by Araraukar » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:09 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Attempted Socialism » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:37 am
OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?Imperium Anglorum wrote:The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by BlackLight Covenant » Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:39 am
by Liberimery » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:39 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:41 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:44 pm
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?Imperium Anglorum wrote:The idea of requiring that a financial institution which does investment banking be paired off with a standard bank also is an easy way to create shock transmission mechanisms from the investment banking sector to the retail banking sector, increasing systemic risk.
Attempted Socialism wrote:And just for the record, I'm against resolutions that unnecessarily occludes understanding through vehement verbosity and use of pseudo-intellectual jargon.
by Attempted Socialism » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:26 pm
It limits something because a bank right now could entirely mix and match commercial and investment enterprise as they desire (Unless there are resolutions I have missed), leading to the scenario we saw in 2008 (Failures of investment banking being transferred into their commercial side and threatening regular customers). If the most efficient thing for banks right now would be two banks doing two separate things, this resolution would change nothing. If the most efficient thing is to mix, this resolution would limit that, though I don't think it would make a substantial difference.Imperium Anglorum wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Perhaps it's due to the authors style, but I read the two first "further resolved" clauses the opposite way: By limiting the links between commercial and investment banks (Although I'm not sure up to 55% linkage is that much of a limit) you also limit the transmission of shocks between the sectors. Those two clauses look like weaker versions of the Glass-Steagal act. Where do you see a requirement to pair off investment and commercial banking activities?
I'm unclear as to how it could limit anything. Investment banking is still going to happen because it produces value. Now, instead of having two separate banks doing two separate things, the least costly way to do it would be to have one bank which has net income of less than 55 per cent from investment banking. The obvious reaction to that is for Goldman Sachs—for example—to just find themselves a retail bank to pair off with so that the proportion falls.
I'm used to reading Danish Civil Law legislation. This is the Danish Public Administration Law. Length, or even verbosity, is not the issue; rather that here it unnecessarily occludes understanding. The style here reminds me more of the promulgations of Estates General, but then again I have so far made a habit of avoiding 17th century patents.Attempted Socialism wrote:And just for the record, I'm against resolutions that unnecessarily occludes understanding through vehement verbosity and use of pseudo-intellectual jargon.
What the OP has written is very much out of line with current legislative practice. This document here outlines what current legislative practice is: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 018.2..pdf. The Judicial Committee Act 1833 is considerably more verbose than what one would find in modern legislative syntax. But it at least follows standard syntax. I'm not sure as to whether the proposal before us in fact follows any modern legislative syntax. The only thing that I think it resembles is organised pseudo-legal commercial argument (OPCA, cf Meads v Meads) or—at the top—letters patent from the mid 17th century.
Whoops, double post.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:34 am
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Sep 09, 2019 9:04 am
... what? This is incomprehensible.Imperium Anglorum wrote:Now, how I read the proposal's impact is that given investment banking will still happen, then people will just move from investment banking being separated from retail banking to not doing that.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:34 am
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:19 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:B is an investment bank. They earn 100 pc of their income from investment banking. A net income provision would require B to find something to dilute its investment bank derived income.
R is a retail bank. It earns none of its income from investment banking. Neither B nor R believe that going bankrupt is a good idea. As B will soon go bankrupt unless it finds a buyer, it can be bought at a low price.
B and R merge (more likely, R purchases B). The resulting institution fulfils the income source requirement.
Do you now understand how this promotes investment banks and retail banks to merge?
EDIT: What are the impacts of this? Sure, the merged institution M has more capital and likely less volatile income flows. It is less likely to fail. But if it does fail, it is larger than the predecessor institutions and has entangled liabilities. It is more systemically risky.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by WayNeacTia » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:15 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
Advertisement
Advertisement