Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Cowan wrote: > W. E. Perry scripsit: > > Ah, but this obscures a distinction that is fundamental. It is one > thing to *use* the counterparty data to establish the settlement price, > and it is quite another thing to *interpret* the counterparty data > *as* the settlement price. The one is a matter of authority (who > gets to say what the true settlement price was?) and the latter is > a matter of denotation (who gets to say that the "foo" element contains a > counterparty and the "bar" element contains a settlement price?) Now, John, I am afraid it is you engaging in 'this-or-nothing' tyranny. Your objection here is that I do not honor your 'intent'. Whether we call what I do 'use' or 'interpretation' of your alleged counterparty data, it is in any case the semantic outcome of a process which I perform autonomously. I do not engage in the process which you expect--and now, apparently, insist on--in interpreting your alleged counterparty data as you would, but what I do is of use to me, and advances the processing which I must perform to complete all of the requirements of a transaction. And yes, you are right that it is a question of authority (which is also what you call denotation here amounts to). I have my own rules which say that your comparison may be used by my process to determine, definitively, the execution counterparty, but may not be used as the basis for settlement money, whatever you might assert. Because by following those rules I can produce a set of cashiering tickets and depot delivery orders, my authority derives from the willingness of the cash counterparty and the settlement depot to consummate the next step of the transaction, based on my having met the requisite paperwork requirements. In the real world of settlements, where else could authority derive from? Respectfully, Walter Perry
|
