DVP exemption - CASS Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{anat|cass|}}The [[DVP exemption]] allows a firm a waiver from the full rigours of the CASS [[safe custody]] and [[client money]] rules for money or assets delivered to the firm when settling a [[delivery versus payment]] transaction.  
{{anat|cass|}}The [[DVP exemption]] allows a firm a waiver from the full rigours of the CASS [[safe custody]] and [[client money]] rules for money or assets delivered to the firm when settling a [[delivery versus payment]] transaction.  


The first thing to note is this covers money and financial instruments ''belonging to the client'' (see CASS [[6.1.1 - CASS Provision|6.1.1]]. There must be some kind of agency or trust arrangement here. If your [[broker]] acts as a [[riskless principal]], as most do, moneys and assets in its hands are amounts it [[owes]] the client under a transaction. That is to say these are the broker’s liabilities; it is not holding assets or money under some kind of [[bailment]] arrangement.  
*'''For securities''': CASS {{cassprov|6.1.12}}, but see also {{cassprov|6.1.4}} for an important qualification.
*'''For client money''': CASS {{cassprov|7.11.14}}.


There is a limited case where there may be a kind of bailment: where the client has expressly pre-funded the broker with its own cash or assets so the broker can make a DVP transaction as its [[agent]] with the street, and when it has done so the broker is holding the resulting cash or assets on the client’s behalf. In this case the broker is not in the contractual flow, is not owed the assets or money, so can only be holding the assets as trustee (or — cough — banker).
The first thing to note is this covers money and financial instruments ''belonging to the client'' (see CASS [[6.1.1 - CASS Provision|6.1.1]]). There must be some kind of [[agency]] or [[trust]] arrangement here. If your [[broker]] acts as a [[riskless principal]], as most do, moneys and assets in its hands are amounts it [[owes]] the client under a transaction. That is to say these are the broker’s liabilities; it is not holding assets or money under some kind of [[bailment]] arrangement.  


As long as the transaction takes place through a [[commercial settlement system]], is intended to settle within one business day of the client's payment or delivery, and actually does settle within the “[[DVP window]]” (a period from the intended settlement date to the close of business on the third business day thereafter).
===Cash brokerage===
When handling a customer order there are three ways a [[broker]] could do it:
#'''As [[principal]]''': [[client]] buys from [[broker]]; broker hedges by buying in its own name [[DvP]] in the market and settling DvP against the client. This is not “on behalf of” the client, but an unconnected [[hedging]] transaction.
#'''As [[undisclosed agent]]''': [[client]] instructs [[broker]] to buy; [[broker]] executes in its own name in the market [[DvP]] and subsequently settles [[DvP]] against the client. This ''is'' “on behalf of the client.”
#'''As [[custody]] [[agent]]''': [[client]] pre-delivers securities to broker and instructs it to sell them; broker executes in its own name in the market [[DvP]] and subsequently pays sale proceeds to the client.
 
Note that economically, 1 and 2 are identical. 3 is a bit different. You should also have the feeling that 1 is not like custody at all, 2 resembles it but only really in form, and 3 is custody-like, but c’mon only for a short period. That feeling would be right. so:
 
'''[[Principal]]''': Brokers (in the UK) almost always operate as principal under (1); this is a function of stock-exchange rules; the fact that they aggregate client orders and route to different venues to get best execution, and because it’s easiest. No question of [[custody]] arises. The broker and client are arm’s length counterparties. CASS does not apply by dint of the basic applicability clause, i.e.: “''This chapter applies to a firm when it holds financial instruments belonging to a client in the course of its MiFID business''.” The broker is not holding financial instruments belonging to a client.
 
'''[[Undisclosed agent]]''':  Sometimes brokers may operate as undiscloseds agent under (2). That is the basic US model. It may apply in the UK where, for example, the client is an affiliated asset manager, and cannot be seen to trade as a principal against the broker (due the apparent [[conflict of interest]]<ref>US rules. [[Investment Advisers Act of 1940|’40 Act]]. [[ERISA]]. That sort of thing.</ref>). But the pipes everything travels down are the same as for 1 (except that the router will exclude broker-affiliated counterparties and prop books). This is the case that is caught by {{cassprov|6.1.4}}:  “The custody rules do not apply where a firm carries on business in its name but on behalf of the client where that is required by the very nature of the transaction and the client is in agreement.”<ref>By the way, the guidance in 6.1.5 here is very odd, for a stock lending transaction is nothing of the kind.</ref> Here it ''is'' an agency agreement, but the firm trades with the street in its own name.
 
'''[[Custody]] [[agent]]''': A broker will rarely do (3). Here the custody rules generally would apply, but the [[DvP]] exemption in  CASS {{cassprov|6.1.12}} and {{cassprov|7.11.14}} would exclude the need for CASS protection as long as the settlement happens within the prescribed periods: as long as the transaction takes place through a [[commercial settlement system]], is intended to settle within one business day of the client's payment or delivery, and actually does settle within the “[[DVP window]]” (a period from the intended settlement date to the close of business on the third business day thereafter).


===The changes wrought by [[PS14/9]]===
===The changes wrought by [[PS14/9]]===
Line 23: Line 36:
*{{cassprov|7.11.14}} - [[client money]] DVP exemption.
*{{cassprov|7.11.14}} - [[client money]] DVP exemption.
*{{cassprov|6.1.12}} - [[custody]] DVP exemption.
*{{cassprov|6.1.12}} - [[custody]] DVP exemption.
{{ref}}

Revision as of 15:11, 31 October 2019

CASS Anatomy™


IMPORTANT: CASS changed quite a bit after MiFID II. This resource therefore may well be out of date, even if it was accurate once, which it might not have been. This is an article about the FCA’s custody and client money rules — client assets — and is fondly known by its chapter in the FCA SourcebookTable of Contents | 1 | 1A | 3 | 5 | 6 (custody rules) | 7 (client money rules) | 7A | 8 | 9 (PBDA) | 10

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

The DVP exemption allows a firm a waiver from the full rigours of the CASS safe custody and client money rules for money or assets delivered to the firm when settling a delivery versus payment transaction.

  • For securities: CASS 6.1.12, but see also 6.1.4 for an important qualification.
  • For client money: CASS 7.11.14.

The first thing to note is this covers money and financial instruments belonging to the client (see CASS 6.1.1). There must be some kind of agency or trust arrangement here. If your broker acts as a riskless principal, as most do, moneys and assets in its hands are amounts it owes the client under a transaction. That is to say these are the broker’s liabilities; it is not holding assets or money under some kind of bailment arrangement.

Cash brokerage

When handling a customer order there are three ways a broker could do it:

  1. As principal: client buys from broker; broker hedges by buying in its own name DvP in the market and settling DvP against the client. This is not “on behalf of” the client, but an unconnected hedging transaction.
  2. As undisclosed agent: client instructs broker to buy; broker executes in its own name in the market DvP and subsequently settles DvP against the client. This is “on behalf of the client.”
  3. As custody agent: client pre-delivers securities to broker and instructs it to sell them; broker executes in its own name in the market DvP and subsequently pays sale proceeds to the client.

Note that economically, 1 and 2 are identical. 3 is a bit different. You should also have the feeling that 1 is not like custody at all, 2 resembles it but only really in form, and 3 is custody-like, but c’mon only for a short period. That feeling would be right. so:

Principal: Brokers (in the UK) almost always operate as principal under (1); this is a function of stock-exchange rules; the fact that they aggregate client orders and route to different venues to get best execution, and because it’s easiest. No question of custody arises. The broker and client are arm’s length counterparties. CASS does not apply by dint of the basic applicability clause, i.e.: “This chapter applies to a firm when it holds financial instruments belonging to a client in the course of its MiFID business.” The broker is not holding financial instruments belonging to a client.

Undisclosed agent: Sometimes brokers may operate as undiscloseds agent under (2). That is the basic US model. It may apply in the UK where, for example, the client is an affiliated asset manager, and cannot be seen to trade as a principal against the broker (due the apparent conflict of interest[1]). But the pipes everything travels down are the same as for 1 (except that the router will exclude broker-affiliated counterparties and prop books). This is the case that is caught by 6.1.4: “The custody rules do not apply where a firm carries on business in its name but on behalf of the client where that is required by the very nature of the transaction and the client is in agreement.”[2] Here it is an agency agreement, but the firm trades with the street in its own name.

Custody agent: A broker will rarely do (3). Here the custody rules generally would apply, but the DvP exemption in CASS 6.1.12 and 7.11.14 would exclude the need for CASS protection as long as the settlement happens within the prescribed periods: as long as the transaction takes place through a commercial settlement system, is intended to settle within one business day of the client's payment or delivery, and actually does settle within the “DVP window” (a period from the intended settlement date to the close of business on the third business day thereafter).

The changes wrought by PS14/9

The DVP exemption was tightened up by the FCA in the great CASS overhaul following its market position paper PS14/9 because the FCA was concerned about a lack of clarity/creative looseness as to:

The amended rules provide that:

  • in respect of a client's purchase the DVP window starts from the date of the client's fulfillment of its payment obligation to the firm (provided the firm intends for the asset in question to be due to the client within one business day following fulfillment) and closes when the transaction settles (or, failing that on the third business day following fulfillment);
  • in respect of a client's sale, the DvP window starts from the date of fulfillment of dlievery and closes when the transaction settles (or, failing that on the third business day following fulfillment);

Banking exemption

If your institution counts as an approved bank consider whether this amounts to a whole hill of beans anyway because you have an exemption from the requirement to hold client money in relation to designated investment business in the first place: CASS 7.10.16 R and 7.10.18 G. Update to {{anat|cass}}

See also

References

  1. US rules. ’40 Act. ERISA. That sort of thing.
  2. By the way, the guidance in 6.1.5 here is very odd, for a stock lending transaction is nothing of the kind.