83,050
edits
Pledge GMSLA Anatomy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|pgmsla|{{subtable|'''{{pgmsla}}'''<br>{{2018 GMSLA TOC}}}}}}===What is the [[Pledge GMSLA]]?=== | ||
The elegantly titled [[Global Master Securities Lending Agreement (Security Interest over Collateral 2018 version)]] — known to the friends it has rapidly made in the industry as the “'''[[Pledge GMSLA]]'''” is a version of the {{tag|GMSLA}} published in November 2018 and designed exclusively for [[Agent lender|agent lending]] arrangements. Instead of posting {{tag|collateral}} by [[title transfer]], the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} [[pledge]]s it. The {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} has a security interest over the collateral, but no right to [[reuse]] or otherwise deal with it. | The elegantly titled [[Global Master Securities Lending Agreement (Security Interest over Collateral 2018 version)]] — known to the friends it has rapidly made in the industry as the “'''[[Pledge GMSLA]]'''” is a version of the {{tag|GMSLA}} published in November 2018 and designed exclusively for [[Agent lender|agent lending]] arrangements. Instead of posting {{tag|collateral}} by [[title transfer]], the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} [[pledge]]s it. The {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} has a security interest over the collateral, but no right to [[reuse]] or otherwise deal with it. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
A pledge GMSLA would be useful and interesting in the following circumstances: | A pledge GMSLA would be useful and interesting in the following circumstances: | ||
*'''FI Borrower''': Where the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} is a [[bank]] or [[financial institution]] that would incur a capital/balance sheet charge under [[Basel III|Basel]] rules for the return of excess collateral it has provided by [[title transfer]] | *'''FI Borrower''': Where the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} is a [[bank]] or [[financial institution]] that would incur a capital/balance sheet charge under [[Basel III|Basel]] rules for the return of excess collateral it has provided by [[title transfer]] | ||
*'''''Non''-FI Lender''' Where the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} is ''not'' a [[financial institution]], but rather is owner of long assets which it is seeking to enhance yield on, where its | *'''''Non''-FI Lender''' Where the {{pgmslaprov|Lender}} is ''not'' a [[financial institution]], but rather is owner of long assets which it is seeking to enhance yield on, where its only concern is [[credit mitigation]] and not funding, and it does not therefore need to [[reuse]] the collateral, being happy for it to be “dead-ended” in a [[Tri-party collateral arrangement|tri-party collateral management system]], as long as it is properly— ahh, ''[[perfect]]ly'' — [[pledge]]d, so that should the {{pgmslaprov|Borrower}} default, the lender has recourse to the collateral. | ||
In other words this is likely to be restricted to [[agent lender]]s and quasi-agent lenders ([[Luxembourg fiduciary|fiduciaries]], [[Espievie|espievies]], [[Repackaging programme|repackaging]] vehicles). | In other words this is likely to be restricted to [[agent lender]]s and quasi-agent lenders ([[Luxembourg fiduciary|fiduciaries]], [[Espievie|espievies]], [[Repackaging programme|repackaging]] vehicles). | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Any normal market participants when trading with each other, where the name of the game is ''funding optimisation'' and ''collateral efficiency''. Any securities lender who needs to use, reuse, rehypothecate posted collateral in their operations So brokers, dealers, banks, credit institutions — anyone who cares about balance sheet and capital efficiency — will ''not'' want to take collateral by pledge. | Any normal market participants when trading with each other, where the name of the game is ''funding optimisation'' and ''collateral efficiency''. Any securities lender who needs to use, reuse, rehypothecate posted collateral in their operations So brokers, dealers, banks, credit institutions — anyone who cares about balance sheet and capital efficiency — will ''not'' want to take collateral by pledge. | ||
===No-one needs ''both''=== | ===No-one<ref>''Almost'' no-one.</ref> needs ''both''=== | ||
It is a well-known rule of thumb that any institution with more than one type of the same master agreement will have all kinds of of operational and booking issues, because, systems not being artificially intelligent, there is no way of knowing which of the master agreements to book a given trade to. The good news is that there should be no “use case” for the ''same'' Lender to have both a title transfer ''and'' a pledge GMSLA. Lenders either care about optimising their collateral and funding — most normal market participants do — and they’ll be under a normal GMSLA, or they don’t — you are like some ultra high net worth asset management client, or a [[sovereign wealth fund]] or something, and you have funding literally coming out of your ears, which is why you are in the agent lending programme in the first place. You will be fine with a pledge GMSLA.<ref>Well: unless you are a [[UCITS]] fund, because the pledge doesn’t sufficiently isolate your credit risk to the lender the way title transfer does.</ref> | It is a well-known rule of thumb that any institution with more than one type of the same master agreement will have all kinds of of operational and booking issues, because, systems not being artificially intelligent, there is no way of knowing which of the master agreements to book a given trade to. The good news is that there should be no “use case” for the ''same'' Lender to have both a title transfer ''and'' a pledge GMSLA. Lenders either care about optimising their collateral and funding — most normal market participants do — and they’ll be under a normal GMSLA, or they don’t — you are like some ultra high net worth asset management client, or a [[sovereign wealth fund]] or something, and you have funding literally coming out of your ears, which is why you are in the agent lending programme in the first place. You will be fine with a pledge GMSLA.<ref>Well: unless you are a [[UCITS]] fund, because the pledge doesn’t sufficiently isolate your credit risk to the lender the way title transfer does.</ref> | ||
There are, apparently, ''some'' banks who lend and take collateral through triparty, as if they were principals of an agent lender. I am not sure ''why'' they do that, but they do. | |||
===Major changes=== | ===Major changes=== | ||
*No concept of {{pgmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}}, seeing as collateral is pledged and dead-ended, so you ''do'' get back what you pledged (and in fact never technically give it away) — there is none of this fuss around [[true sale]] that you have with [[title transfer]] (in that there’s no [[recharacterisation]] to a [[secured loan]]: we’re saying it ''is'' a [[secured loan]]). | *No concept of {{pgmslaprov|Equivalent}} {{pgmslaprov|Collateral}}, seeing as collateral is pledged and dead-ended, so you ''do'' get back what you pledged (and in fact never technically give it away) — there is none of this fuss around [[true sale]] that you have with [[title transfer]] (in that there’s no [[recharacterisation]] to a [[secured loan]]: we’re saying it ''is'' a [[secured loan]]). | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*The normal, 2010, [[title transfer]] [[GMSLA Anatomy]] - a lot more information about stock lending generally there. | *The normal, 2010, [[title transfer]] [[GMSLA Anatomy]] - a lot more information about stock lending generally there. | ||
{{ref}} | |||