Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision: Difference between revisions

Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision (view source)

Revision as of 13:07, 22 November 2019

500 bytes added , 22 November 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|cass|{{nuts|CASS|6.6.54}}}}''The equivalent provision under CASS 7 (for {{t|client money}} discrepancies) is CASS {{cassprov|7.15.29}}''
+{{a|cass|{{nuts|CASS|6.6.54}}}}''The equivalent provision under CASS 7 (for {{t|client money}} discrepancies) is CASS {{cassprov|7.15.29}}''<br>
-Yours truly reads that to mean you cannot simply put aside some of your own assets and grant a security interest in favour of clients over those assets, while maintaining legal ownership of them, even though that is plainly the nearest economic action for resolving a temporary shortfall scenario which is expected to be resolved. No, you must actually pass title to those assets to the clients, but with some unspecified reversionary right to the assets should the happy event come about that your shortfall is settled.
+the famous [[CASS shortfalls]] provision. If you have some settlement fails into your custody business such that you are holding fewer [[custody asset]]s than your records suggest you ought to, you must put aside your own[[cash]] or [[assets]] to cover that [[shortfall]], and mark it to market until the shortfall is resolved, to mitigate your client’s exposure.
-Now giving clients outright ownership of assets they didn’t ask for and didn’t really want seems an odd tool to pick from the box, but there you have it. Life wasn’t meant to be easy.
+Yours truly reads that to mean you cannot simply put aside some of your own assets and grant a security interest over those assets in favour of clients, thereby maintaining legal ownership of them, even though that is plainly the most sensible way to resolve the implied credit risk to yourself presented by a temporary shortfall which you expect quickly to resolve. No, you must actually [[Title transfer|pass title]] to those assets outright to the clients, but somehow confect an unspecified reversionary right to the assets which, in the theory, you no longer own, should the happy day come — expected to be tomorrow — when the shortfall is resolved.
+Giving clients outright ownership of assets they didn’t ask for and didn’t really want seems an odd tool to pick from the box, but there you have it. Life wasn’t meant to be easy.
 ''Here is {{ps14/9}}, which explains much of the [[great CASS rewrite]].''
@@ Line 28: / Line 30: @@
 {{Inadvertent use}}
-{{seealso}}
+{{sa}}
 *The [[great CASS rewrite]]
 *{{ps14/9}}