Template:Csa title transfer vs pledge: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(No difference)

Revision as of 18:25, 17 January 2020

===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.
  1. This doesn't stop triparty agents requiring title transfer providers to grant their counterparties a right of reuse.