/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6533529]

so I was reading this thread on /biz/

>>>/biz/752694

and I'm trying to answer OPs question but I swear this sentence is complete gibberish.

>[provide] a recommendation as to whether the ASX Corporate Governance Council should issue guidelines on the form disclosure of corporate policy regarding the desired or mandated level of directors’ share/option holdings should take (not the actual level of holdings for which disclosures are mandated already under AASB 2 Share-based Payment)

is there something grammatically wrong with it or...?

[Anonymous No.6533549]

>>6533529
if that's a full sentence, then no, it's not correct.

It's asking a two part question, but there's only one part. When you get to the word "or" the clause becomes a fragment. The word "should" is in the wrong place, and the "share/option holdings take..." What? What should they take? The sentence isn't complete.

>Community college

[Anonymous No.6533557]

>>6533549
I thought something was wrong with it. what on earth is it even asking.

[Anonymous No.6533565]

Just break it apart OP:

>[provide] a recommendation

as to whether the ASX Corporate Governance Council should

issue guidelines on the form disclosure of corporate policy regarding the desired

or

mandated level of directors’ share/option holdings

should take

(not the actual level of holdings for which disclosures are mandated already under AASB 2 Share-based Payment)

The 'or' is possibly confusing since the previous 'should' makes the 'or' seem as if the sentence is saying "Should I do this OR this?" when actually it isn't. Not a big deal.

The real problem is the 'should take' at the end. The should is redundant and makes the sentence confusing.

>[provide] a recommendation as to whether the ASX Corporate Governance Council should issue guidelines on the form disclosure of corporate policy regarding the desired or mandated level of directors’ share/option holdings (not the actual level of holdings for which disclosures are mandated already under AASB 2 Share-based Payment)

The above is how the sentence should be formed.

[Anonymous No.6533569]

>>6533557
The sentence is demanding a recommendation.

The recommendation is for the ASX CGC Council, as to whether they should provide guidelines on how to disclose corporate policy. The policy in question is on the desired or mandated level of directors share/option holdings.

tldr; Should the council issue guidelines on how the corporation deals with its directors holdings.

[Anonymous No.6533652]

>>6533549
The or only applies to the verbs "mandated" and "desired". The sentence reads shittily, which is why you guys are having a hard time even parsing it.

It's asking whether they should provide recommendations on a potential guideline for desired/mandated director's share/option holdings... if I understand correctly.

Fuck corporate buzz-speak. Kill them all.

[Anonymous No.6533699]

>>6533529
>mandated level of
mandated level that

OR

>mandated level of directors' share/option holdings should take
mandated level of directors' share/option holdings

The academic has changed what they're thinking about between writing "of" and "should take".

>>6533652
This isn't corporate buzz speak. It is assignment shorthand.