Template:Csa title transfer vs pledge: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This feels as good a time as any to raise the great subject of [[title transfer]] and [[pledge]]. In a {{nutshell}}: | This feels as good a time as any to raise the great subject of [[title transfer]] and [[pledge]]. In a {{nutshell}}: | ||
===='''Title Transfer'''==== | ===='''Title Transfer'''==== | ||
The {{1995csa}} – outside the US, by far the most common type of {{csa}} – is a [[title transfer]] document: | Outright transfer. Examples: The {{1995csa}} – outside the US, by far the most common type of {{csa}} – is a [[title transfer]] document: A vanilla {{gmsla}} or {{gmsla}} operates by title transfer. | ||
*When securities delivered to a party they become the recipient's property absolutely | *When securities delivered to a party they become the recipient's property absolutely | ||
*Recipient does not hold them in custody for the transferor; | *Recipient does not hold them in custody for the transferor; | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*Therefore no {{tag|CASS}} or [[custody]] question arises at any point - the transferor gives up all legal claims to the asset. | *Therefore no {{tag|CASS}} or [[custody]] question arises at any point - the transferor gives up all legal claims to the asset. | ||
*Nor does it make any sense to talk about the transferee’s right to [[reuse]] or [[rehypothecate]] the asset. It owns the asset outright: by definition it can do what it wants with it; the transferor can’t stop it.<ref>This doesn't stop [[triparty agent]]s requiring title transfer providers to grant their counterparties a right of reuse.</ref> | *Nor does it make any sense to talk about the transferee’s right to [[reuse]] or [[rehypothecate]] the asset. It owns the asset outright: by definition it can do what it wants with it; the transferor can’t stop it.<ref>This doesn't stop [[triparty agent]]s requiring title transfer providers to grant their counterparties a right of reuse.</ref> | ||
===='''Pledge'''==== | |||
Examples: The {{1995csd}} and {{1994csa}} are “pledge” documents. Collateral deliveries under the US-style {{msla}} and {{mra}} are pledges (with a right of [[reuse]]). | |||
*The transferor delivers the assets to the transferee to hold in [[custody]] for the transferor – the transferor retains title. | |||
*Recipient holds the assets subject to a {{tag|security interest}} securing its payment obligation under the related transaction. | |||
*The custody arrangement only exists while recipient holds the security, not before. | |||
**Under US iterations of this form (e.g. the {{1994csa}}) the pledgee may nonetheless be entitled to sell the pledged asset absolutely, under a process known as [[rehypothecation]]. Don’t laugh. [[Amwell J|We]] think this converts the pledge into a [[title transfer collateral arrangement]] — at least at the point of [[rehypothecation]]. | **Under US iterations of this form (e.g. the {{1994csa}}) the pledgee may nonetheless be entitled to sell the pledged asset absolutely, under a process known as [[rehypothecation]]. Don’t laugh. [[Amwell J|We]] think this converts the pledge into a [[title transfer collateral arrangement]] — at least at the point of [[rehypothecation]]. | ||
Revision as of 09:04, 29 April 2019
===Title transfer vs. Pledge=== This feels as good a time as any to raise the great subject of title transfer and pledge. In a Nutshell™:
Title Transfer
Outright transfer. Examples: The 1995 CSA – outside the US, by far the most common type of 1995 CSA – is a title transfer document: A vanilla 2010 GMSLA or 2010 GMSLA operates by title transfer.
- When securities delivered to a party they become the recipient's property absolutely
- Recipient does not hold them in custody for the transferor;
- Recipient has only an obligation to redeliver an equivalent security.
- Therefore no CASS or custody question arises at any point - the transferor gives up all legal claims to the asset.
- Nor does it make any sense to talk about the transferee’s right to reuse or rehypothecate the asset. It owns the asset outright: by definition it can do what it wants with it; the transferor can’t stop it.[1]
Pledge
Examples: The 1995 ISDA CSD (English law) and 1994 NY CSA are “pledge” documents. Collateral deliveries under the US-style Master Securities Lending Agreement and Master Repurchase Agreement are pledges (with a right of reuse).
- The transferor delivers the assets to the transferee to hold in custody for the transferor – the transferor retains title.
- Recipient holds the assets subject to a security interest securing its payment obligation under the related transaction.
- The custody arrangement only exists while recipient holds the security, not before.
- Under US iterations of this form (e.g. the 1994 NY CSA) the pledgee may nonetheless be entitled to sell the pledged asset absolutely, under a process known as rehypothecation. Don’t laugh. We think this converts the pledge into a title transfer collateral arrangement — at least at the point of rehypothecation.
- ↑ This doesn't stop triparty agents requiring title transfer providers to grant their counterparties a right of reuse.