Template:Inadvertent use: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "===Settlement fails and shortfalls and express prior consent=== ''Warning: tedious passage approaching''<br> The Jolly Contrarian’s vi..."
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Settlement fails and [[Shortfall - CASS Provision|shortfalls]] and [[express prior consent]]===
''Warning: tedious passage approaching''<br>
''Warning: tedious passage approaching''<br>
The [[Jolly Contrarian]]’s view is that [[Shortfall - CASS Provision|shortfall]]s arising through settlement failures in an omnibus account are covered by CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}} and not the “omnibus use” in {{cassprov|6.4.1}}(2) and therefore do not require a client’s [[express prior consent]]:
The [[Jolly Contrarian]]’s view is that [[Shortfall - CASS Provision|shortfall]]s arising through settlement failures into an [[omnibus account]] are covered by CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}} and are not an example of “omnibus use” in {{cassprov|6.4.1}}(2) and therefore do not require a client’s [[express prior consent]]:
*[[Shortfall - CASS Provision|Shortfall]]s arising as a result of inbound settlement failures are not in the nature of deliberate, or even really “inadvertent” use of [[client assets]]: They are {{cassprov|shortfall}}s arising as a result of complying with client instructions on their own assets, and are covered by the [[Shortfall - CASS Provision|Shortfalls]] language introduced after PS14/9 by CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}} R.
*[[Shortfall - CASS Provision|Shortfall]]s arise as a result of ''inbound settlement failures''. There is no question of using one clients assets (even inadvertently) to satisfy another’s obligations. The custodian correctly transfers out the account a client’s own assets in accordance with that client’s instructions. A subsequent settlement failure ''into'' the account results in the omnibus account being underfunded — there is a “{{cassprov|shortfall}}”. This is not in the nature of deliberate, or even “inadvertent” use of [[client assets]]: it is (instead) covered by the [[Shortfall - CASS Provision|Shortfalls]] language introduced after PS14/9 by CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}} R.
*As {{cassprov|shortfall}}s, they have been subject to comprehensive review (PS14/9) and detailed specific provisions (CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}}R) which do not require [[prior express consent]].
*As {{cassprov|shortfall}}s, they have been subject to comprehensive review (PS14/9) and detailed specific provisions (CASS {{cassprov|6.6.54}}R) which do not require [[prior express consent]].
*There is no mention of “inadvertent” use in CASS {{cassprov|6.4.1}}.
*The “express prior consent” requirement of {{cassprov|6.4.1}} applies to all clients (not just retail ones – simply the earlier text specified precisely how that [[prior express consent]] was to be evidenced for retail clients) has substantively been in place since 2007 ({{t|MiFID I}}) and was not materially been changed either by PS 14/9 or {{t|MiFID II}}.
*If one accepts that a {{cassprov|shortfall}} is not a “use” per se (inadvertent or otherwise), then a non-compliant use under CASS {{cassprov|6.4.1}} sounds like an operational failure or contractual breach whereby the custodian (intentionally) uses assets wrt which it had no permission from the client to use.
*The “express prior consent” requirement of {{cassprov|6.4.1}} applies to all clients (not just retail ones – simply the earlier text specified precisely how that prior express consent was to be evidenced for retail clients) has substantively been in place since 2007 ({{t|MiFID I}}) and was not materially been changed either by PS 14/9 or {{t|MiFID II}}.
*The meaning of “[[prior express consent]]”<ref>Is it the same thing as [[express prior consent]] though???</ref> in the context of MiFID was discussed by then regulator CESR in 2007 a  discussion paper (albeit in the context of best execution) and said: “Where MiFID requires “prior express consent”, CESR considers that this entails an actual demonstration of consent by the client which may be provided by signature in writing or an equivalent means (electronic signature), by a click on a web page or orally by telephone or in person, with appropriate record keeping in each case.”
*The meaning of “[[prior express consent]]”<ref>Is it the same thing as [[express prior consent]] though???</ref> in the context of MiFID was discussed by then regulator CESR in 2007 a  discussion paper (albeit in the context of best execution) and said: “Where MiFID requires “prior express consent”, CESR considers that this entails an actual demonstration of consent by the client which may be provided by signature in writing or an equivalent means (electronic signature), by a click on a web page or orally by telephone or in person, with appropriate record keeping in each case.”

Latest revision as of 16:50, 12 March 2018

Warning: tedious passage approaching
The Jolly Contrarian’s view is that shortfalls arising through settlement failures into an omnibus account are covered by CASS 6.6.54 and are not an example of “omnibus use” in 6.4.1(2) and therefore do not require a client’s express prior consent:

  • Shortfalls arise as a result of inbound settlement failures. There is no question of using one clients assets (even inadvertently) to satisfy another’s obligations. The custodian correctly transfers out the account a client’s own assets in accordance with that client’s instructions. A subsequent settlement failure into the account results in the omnibus account being underfunded — there is a “shortfall”. This is not in the nature of deliberate, or even “inadvertent” use of client assets: it is (instead) covered by the Shortfalls language introduced after PS14/9 by CASS 6.6.54 R.
  • As shortfalls, they have been subject to comprehensive review (PS14/9) and detailed specific provisions (CASS 6.6.54R) which do not require prior express consent.
  • The “express prior consent” requirement of 6.4.1 applies to all clients (not just retail ones – simply the earlier text specified precisely how that prior express consent was to be evidenced for retail clients) has substantively been in place since 2007 (MiFID I) and was not materially been changed either by PS 14/9 or MiFID II.
  • The meaning of “prior express consent[1] in the context of MiFID was discussed by then regulator CESR in 2007 a discussion paper (albeit in the context of best execution) and said: “Where MiFID requires “prior express consent”, CESR considers that this entails an actual demonstration of consent by the client which may be provided by signature in writing or an equivalent means (electronic signature), by a click on a web page or orally by telephone or in person, with appropriate record keeping in each case.”
  1. Is it the same thing as express prior consent though???