Template:M summ Pledge GMSLA 5.4: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Remember the theory here, in contrast to the {{pgmsla}} is that the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} is managing collateral in a triparty system, and the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} is a..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Remember the theory here, in contrast to the {{pgmsla}} is that the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} is managing collateral in a [[triparty system]], and the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} is an [[agent lender]] acting on behalf of some other wealthy buy and hold investor who has no particular use for the {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} being posted to it, other than to act as security. Thus the {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} never leaves the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s beneficial ownership, but just moves between its tri-party “[[long-box]]” and its a triparty [[pledge]] account — being a separate account in its name, only pledged to the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}}. All these movements will be handled by the triparty agent without the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s intervention, assuming the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} has funded enough assets in its long-box in the first place. Which, unless it is ''properly'' going down the Swanee, it will have done automatically. This is a big, bulk business. | [[5.4 - Pledge GMSLA Provision|Remember]] the theory here, in contrast to the {{pgmsla}} is that the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} is managing collateral in a [[triparty system]], and the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} is an [[agent lender]] acting on behalf of some other wealthy buy and hold investor who has no particular use for the {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} being posted to it, other than to act as security. Thus the {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} never leaves the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s beneficial ownership, but just moves between its tri-party “[[long-box]]” and its a triparty [[pledge]] account — being a separate account in its name, only pledged to the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}}. All these movements will be handled by the triparty agent without the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}}’s intervention, assuming the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} has funded enough assets in its long-box in the first place. Which, unless it is ''properly'' going down the Swanee, it will have done automatically. This is a big, bulk business. | ||
Therefore no need for detailed deadlines for request, delivery and other settlement arrangements: {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} is not flying bodily around the [[clearing system]]s, but lying still and simply being re-badged in the triparty custodian's books and records. | Therefore no need for detailed deadlines for request, delivery and other settlement arrangements: {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}} is not flying bodily around the [[clearing system]]s, but lying still and simply being re-badged in the triparty custodian's books and records. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:59, 25 February 2022
Remember the theory here, in contrast to the 2018 Pledge GMSLA is that the Borrower is managing collateral in a triparty system, and the Lender is an agent lender acting on behalf of some other wealthy buy and hold investor who has no particular use for the Collateral being posted to it, other than to act as security. Thus the Collateral never leaves the Borrower’s beneficial ownership, but just moves between its tri-party “long-box” and its a triparty pledge account — being a separate account in its name, only pledged to the Lender. All these movements will be handled by the triparty agent without the Borrower’s intervention, assuming the Borrower has funded enough assets in its long-box in the first place. Which, unless it is properly going down the Swanee, it will have done automatically. This is a big, bulk business.
Therefore no need for detailed deadlines for request, delivery and other settlement arrangements: Collateral is not flying bodily around the clearing systems, but lying still and simply being re-badged in the triparty custodian's books and records.