Sub-custodian: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===See also=== | ===See also=== | ||
*[[Custodian]] | *[[Custodian]] | ||
*[[No lien letter]] | |||
*[[Prime broker]] | *[[Prime broker]] | ||
*{{aifmdprov|Depositary}} ({{tag|AIFMD}}) | *{{aifmdprov|Depositary}} ({{tag|AIFMD}}) |
Revision as of 12:56, 14 August 2018
A topic of some recent interest in light of AIFMD and UCITS V legislation. Under both regimes a single depositary must be appointed having strict liability for the safe keeping of assets.
Note though that being delegated a custody function is an altogether different thing to being a subcustodian.
A depositary who delegates its custody function won't hold the assets at all - it will pass that responsibility to the prime broker, who will record the end client's interests in the custody assets directly in its books and records.
It may in turn appoint a subcustodian who will hold all the prime broker's client assets in a single omnibus account, in the prime broker's name but marked as "client assets" and therefore unavailable for the prime broker's creditors.
See also
{{{2}}}
|