No reuse of assets by depositary - UCITS V Provision: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

No reuse of assets by depositary - UCITS V Provision (view source)

Revision as of 11:19, 18 January 2020

19 bytes added , 18 January 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Expect optimistic [[prime brokerage]] [[sales]]folk to argue that the limited exception will cover PB rephypothecation as long as the PB limits itself to 100% of the fund’s [[indebtedness]]. Alas, this is wishful thinking. The permitted exception to the bar on reuse is designed to allow {{tag|UCITS}} funds to participate in fully collateralised [[Agent lender|agent lending]] programmes. In that case a custodian lends client assets into the market on the client’s behalf (and as its [[agent]]) to earn a positive additional return for the fund. This is a very different thing to allowing a prime broker to play with the fund’s assets to defray its own financing costs from its margin lending on those very assets. To wit:
 *“[[Reuse]]” is defined to include transfer, sale and loan
-*“[[Reuse]]” is expressed to be “for the account of” the UCITS. This is consistent with the “reuser” {{ucits5prov|depositary}} acting as ''[[agent]]'' — like, as an [[agent lender]] — on behalf of the fund, rather than as the fund’s [[principal]] (in which case reuse would be for the account of the depositary). [[Agent lending]] is a very different kettle of fish: there, the custodian has not (necessarily) financed the asset — that is to  say, an agent lending arrangement is in no sense a function of the principal’s indebtedness to the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} — but rather is a custodian offering to generate some yield enhancement for its clients by lending their assets out into the market, for a fee, against collateral provided by those market borrowers.
+*“[[Reuse]]” is expressed to be “for the account of” the UCITS. This is consistent with the “reuser” {{ucits5prov|depositary}} acting as ''[[agent]]'' — like, as an [[agent lender]] — on behalf of the fund, rather than as the fund’s counterparty or banker (in which case [[reuse]] would be “for the account of the counterparty”, not the fund). [[Agent lending]] is a very different kettle of fish: there, the custodian has not (necessarily) financed the asset — that is to  say, an agent lending arrangement is in no sense a function of the principal’s indebtedness to the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} — but rather is a custodian offering to generate some yield enhancement for its clients by lending their assets out into the market, for a fee, against collateral provided by those market borrowers.
 *[[Agent lending]] “[[reuse]]” is, thus, explicitly for the benefit of the fund [[principal]], in that the fund earns a positive return by doing it. The best you could say of {{tag|PB}}-style [[rehypothecation]]  is that the fund avoids a steeper financing charge from the {{tag|PB}} that would be implied were the [[prime broker]] not allowed to [[rehypothecate]] the assets it has financed. In any case {{tag|UCITS}} have fairly strict limits against [[leverage]] so generally shouldn't be financing assets in the first place.
-*Likewise, the theory of [[rehypothecation]] is that it isn't [[Collateral|collateralised]], and certainly not with high-quality collateral: to the contrary, the [[prime broker]]’s right to take assets is dependent on the fund’s indebtedness to the PB, so that there is nothing to collateralise. Arguing that by effectively eliminating [[indebtedness]] is kind of like being [[Collateralised transaction - Basel II Provision|collateralised]] (as long as you limit yourself to 100% of [[indebtedness]]) is, as I say, a stretch.
+*Likewise, the theory of [[rehypothecation]] is that it isn't [[Collateral|collateralised]], and certainly not with high-quality collateral: to the contrary, the [[prime broker]]’s right to take assets is dependent on the fund’s indebtedness to the PB, so that there is nothing to collateralise. Arguing that by effectively eliminating [[indebtedness]] is kind of like being [[Collateralised transaction - Basel II Provision|collateralised]] (as long as you limit yourself to 100% of [[indebtedness]]) is a stretch.
 ===What about assets posted as margin?===
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 For [[Regulatory margin|Regulatory IM]] it is probably no biggie that you can’t do anything with it, since you are not meant to do anything with it anyway. The assets are meant to be immobilised, away from the clutches and rehypothecatory designs of your [[broker]] and the fragile, feather-weight, jacked-up-on-[[vega]] credit-quality of its [[client]].  But for [[ETD]] it’s  a different story: your [[clearing broker]] will need to the margin you posted to it down the line to satisfy its own [[IM]] requirements to the [[clearing house]] and [[intermediate broker]]s. If it can’t freely [[reuse]] your [[initial margin]], it will have to fund its own. ''And guess who’s going to pay for that''.<ref>A free bag of sweeties for you if you answered “me”.</ref>
-{{seealso}}
+{{sa}}
 *[[Rehypothecation]]
 *[[Agent lending]]