82,853
edits
Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision: Difference between revisions
Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision (view source)
Revision as of 19:17, 23 February 2020
, 23 February 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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}}''<br> | {{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> | ||
The famous [[CASS shortfalls]] provision: should you have some settlement fails into your [[custody]] business — quite likely, if you offer [[contractual settlement]] — such that at any time you hold 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. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Client money behaves differently to client assets when entities start going bust. In a nutshell, unless you have set up separate pools, client money losses are mutualised across all clients benefiting from client money protection; client asset losses are (a) a lot less likely—even if your custodian has blown up you ''should'' still get all your custody assets back (unless there is a shortfall!), and (b) even where you don’t, and the assets have somehow been lost or stolen, losses are mutualised across only those clients who had an interest in the particular [[ISIN]] which has been lost. | Client money behaves differently to client assets when entities start going bust. In a nutshell, unless you have set up separate pools, client money losses are mutualised across all clients benefiting from client money protection; client asset losses are (a) a lot less likely—even if your custodian has blown up you ''should'' still get all your custody assets back (unless there is a shortfall!), and (b) even where you don’t, and the assets have somehow been lost or stolen, losses are mutualised across only those clients who had an interest in the particular [[ISIN]] which has been lost. | ||
Another weird outcome is that if you have posted [[client money]] against a [[Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision|custody shortfall]], and there is a [[secondary pooling event]] amongst your client money banks, that shortfall cash will be mutualised across all beneficiaries of client money across your organisation—it | Another weird outcome is that if you have posted [[client money]] against a [[Treatment of shortfalls - CASS Provision|custody shortfall]], and there is a [[secondary pooling event]] amongst your client money banks, that shortfall cash will be mutualised across all beneficiaries of client money across your organisation—it isn’t pegged away and held for the poor punter suffering the shortfall. | ||
===But sir sir what about CASS {{cassprov|6.4.1}}?=== | ===But sir sir what about CASS {{cassprov|6.4.1}}?=== | ||