Prime brokerage agreement disclosure annex: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cassanat|9 | {{cassanat|9|3|}} | ||
The famous [[prime brokerage disclosure annex]] mandated by CASS {{cassprov|9.3}}. Note especially the second part, which refers explicity to the [[CF10a]]’s personal responsibility for making sure everything is tickety-boo. Which will mean your local [[CF10a]] might be [[inclined]], almost imperceptibly, to obsess madly about your catalogue of [[prime brokerage disclosure annexe]]s at every waking moment (yours or {{sex|hers}}). | The famous [[prime brokerage disclosure annex]] mandated by CASS {{cassprov|9.3}}. Note especially the second part, which refers explicity to the [[CF10a]]’s personal responsibility for making sure everything is tickety-boo. Which will mean your local [[CF10a]] might be [[inclined]], almost imperceptibly, to obsess madly about your catalogue of [[prime brokerage disclosure annexe]]s at every waking moment (yours or {{sex|hers}}). | ||
Revision as of 15:22, 5 November 2018
Template:Cassanat The famous prime brokerage disclosure annex mandated by CASS 9.3. Note especially the second part, which refers explicity to the CF10a’s personal responsibility for making sure everything is tickety-boo. Which will mean your local CF10a might be inclined, almost imperceptibly, to obsess madly about your catalogue of prime brokerage disclosure annexes at every waking moment (yours or hers).
Strictly speaking, one only needs a PBDA if one is reusing or (as our American friends like to say, “rehypothecating” client assets. If you don’t reuse custody assets — that is, you have no right to transfer them to your own account for your own nefarious purposes[1], you don't need to provide your client with a PBDA.
The rule, which was not significantly modified by MiFID II, you can see in original here: CASS Chapter 9
See also
References
- ↑ not really nefarious, obviously