A message I try to hammer home to my students is the need for consistency in business writing.
Not ‘foolish consistency… the hobgoblin of little minds’ as Ralph Waldo Emerson had it, but sensible, pragmatic consistency which avoids annoying or disengaging your reader to the point where they ‘swipe left’ on your content.
This applies to layout as much as – or more than – any other aspect of business writing.
One area where writers are often guilty of layout inconsistency is the punctuation of lists; across different lists in the same piece, or sometimes even within a single list.
This is the latest round-up in the series covering key announcements and developments in UK financial risk and regulation.
As usual I adopt a summarised and simplified approach to the main stories. Links to underlying source stories or documents are contained in individual articles in this blog.
Substantive guidance is now starting to emerge from the regulators on Brexit; in particular the need for some firms to apply for relevant authorisations to do business in the UK post-Brexit, irrespective of the likely implementation period and temporary permissions regime. See section 1 below.
A major regulatory announcement came in December from the Basel Committee: the final set of revisions to the Basel III capital rules. These included confirmation of the new capital floor, delays to the implementation timeline and other changes. See section 2 below.
*** Note: The articles in this blog do not constitute advice, but please contact Prism-Clarity for further information, including where to get the best advice. ***
In all business writing the common element is impact. You are looking to make an impact, and the core message or story will help determine whether you have one and what it will be.
This final blog in the series takes a practical view, focusing first on the power that Twitter has to make you condense your story into very few characters; and then offering some further touchstones on summarising effectively, to help you really get to the story.
The last Style Corner blog covered a topic at the grammar end of the spectrum, the use of commas to divide two full sentences (or comma splice).
This time we go to the other end of the spectrum, to a topic that is not grammar, not really usage and not really even style. Yet it still still exercises an absurd, unwarranted degree of influence on people’s writing habits; even though it is no more than a nineteenth century myth.
Worse, it causes anxiety and uncertainty. Some style guides still frown on it, and some writers, consciously or unconsciously, avoid it; thankfully no longer The Economist, which now ‘allows’ it.
Many brave grammarian and journalist knights have tried to slay the split infinitive dragon, and this blog represents my own small sword stroke towards that end.
Prism-Clarity provides high-quality professional writing, editorial and training services for financial sector and other clients