Template:Delegate vs subcontractor
Delegate versus sub-contractor
The difference betwixt
Delegation, according to a natural definition, means “to entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.”[1]. Being delegated a custody function — agreeing to act as main custodian to a fund on behalf of the depositary whom the fund has appointed to carry out that function is a different thing from being appointed as a sub-custodian.
- A delegating depositary won't hold the assets at all: it will pass that responsibility to the prime broker, who will record the end client's interests in the custody assets directly in its books and records. It may have to report this all to the depositary, but the depositary will not carry record of the client’s assets in its own books and records.
- A subcustodian is an entity who stands behind the main custodian and holds the custodian's client assets in a single omnibus account, in the custodian's name but marked as "client assets" and therefore unavailable for the prime broker's creditors. A sub-custodian won’t know who the custodian's clients are, let alone which assets are attributable to which clients, much less have a contractual relationship with those clients, and won’t be in a position to rehypothecate any assets it holds.
Careful though: Both CASS and AIFMD/UCITS are a little sloppy in their use of the word “delegation”, using it on occasion to mean a subcontract[2]. CASS only really talks about subcontracts, though AIFMD and UCITS deal with true delegation and subcontracts.
Why delegate?
Why do depositaries delegate their custody functions under AIFMD and UCITS then? Market structure is why.
- AIFs and UCITS funds are required to have a local depositary to look after the fund’s interests, make sure it is properly managed, and to look after its assets. The depostiary must be independent and must avoid conflicts of interest with the fund, such as would arise if the depositary lent to or traded with the fund. A depositary typically cannot act as a prime broker (a bank who lends on margin to hedge funds).
- Funds — particularly hedge funds and AIFs, but sometimes UCITS too — like to invest “on margin”, borrowing funds from a prime broker against the security of the assets it purchases with the margin loans.
- Prime brokers like to have assets to it can use them, defray its funding costs and manage its balance sheet.
- Structural problem therefore: Depositary is meant to hold the assets, but it can't lend against them. PB wants to lend against assets, but the depositary is meant to hold them.
- “Hold on,” says the PB. “If the depositary holds the assets, then I can hardly rehypothecate them, can I, and we know how important rehypothecation is to my business model, don’t we?”
- The depositary shrugs. “So, I'll make you my sub-custodian,” he says, “There: re-hypothecate to your heart's content.”
- “No can do,” says the PB. “I can only rehypothecate against indebtedness, and you don't owe me anything. Only the fund does. And besides, as a sub-custodian I only see an omnibus account. I don't know who owns what. For rehypo to work, I have to have a direct contractual relationship with the Fund. That's the deal.”
- Answer: the depositary delegates the custody function to the prime broker. Both AIFMD[3] and UCITS[4] allow this in certain circumstances, but there are complicated rules as to whether the depositary can shift responsibility to the PB.
Further reading
For delegation under AIFMD, proceed to Art. 21(11) AIFMD and take it from there. For UCITS, start with Art. 22a of UCITS V.