ESMA pressed to abandon strict sub-custody segregation
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has been strongly urged to abandon the strict interpretation of the segregation of client assets throughout the custody chain, at the Global Custody Forum in London today.
The introduction of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers
Directive (AIFMD) and the UCITS V Directive, introduced in July 2014 and March 2016 respectively,
left open the interpretation of the segregation of client assets.
“The first thing that comes to mind is the open point on
AIFMD and UCITS V,” said James Farrugia, partner at Ganado Advocates. “Do we
need to segregate AIF assets, UCITS assets and assets belonging to other
clients all the way down the custody chain or not?”
While it has been decided by ESMA, and accepted by the
industry, that assets must be segregated into UCITS, AIF or other investor
groups at the client-facing depositary level – which is liable for assets – it
remains undecided whether this must be maintained at non-client-facing levels
of sub-custody below the depositary.
The asset segregation regime is designed to ensure that the
ownership of assets is clearly identifiable and robustly protected in the event
of an insolvency. ESMA is considering the responses to its consultation, which
closed in September, ahead of submitting its re-drafted technical standards to
the European Commission.
The panellists welcomed the notion that ESMA, which unusually
consulted twice on the issue, has demonstrated “a bit of backtracking”.
“If EMSA adopts a hard position, it is because it does not
recognise the distinction between segregation and omnibus structure,” said
Farrugia. He added that the regulatory institution “seems to be unable how
these two principles can work together on the level of protection for the
assets”.
The panel, and seemingly a majority of the delegates, was in
agreement that asset segregation according to investment vehicle type beyond
the client-facing depositary bank does not serve a purpose except to increase
risk of error. “If we had segregation down the chain in UCITS assets, for
example, I think it would only create more operational risk,” commented
Farrugia.
Farrugia noted that clients might need separate accounts for
tax reclaim purposes but segregating them just for the sake of having
“different buckets all the way down the custody chain” is “useless”.
Susan Wright, regulatory and compliance specialist at the
Investment Association, was in agreement: “I can’t see at the moment why there
would be any benefit to introduce further risk,” she said.
“At the end of the day, the entity which needs to maintain
proper records of the ownership of those assets is the custodian or depositary
that is facing the client,” said Farrugia. “The custodian needs to do their job
and ensure their contracts are robust.”
“There is a clear obligation under AIFMD and UCITS V that
the depositary facing the client must be satisfied and undertake extensive due
diligence,” Farrugia added.
Moderator Habib Motani, partner at Clifford Chance, added that
the issue was not the segregation of client assets from those of the custodian,
“that is a given”, but whether it is beneficial to segregate at all levels of sub-custody
in terms of vehicle type.
“Once you have a segregated block, whether you divide that
block into three individual segregated blocks or leave it as one block, it
makes zero difference to the protection element,” said Motani. “It does no such
thing apart from add cost and operational issues.”
Non-financial
regulations
In addition to the concern regarding segregation, the
Investment Association’s Wright added non-financial regulations were quite
“tricky” for custodians and the IA’s asset manager membership.
“The General Data Protection Regulation (GPRP) for example
will impact financial services and custodians in a huge way,” said Wright. “But
from a custodian’s point of view, this will provide a good opportunity to work
with asset managers, particularly if they are only based in one jurisdiction.”
“I think asset managers are going to rely more and more on
their custodians. In some, but not all cases, custodians are now doing what
they should have been doing in terms of liabilities, responsibilities and who
does what."
Found this useful?
Take a complimentary trial of the FOW Marketing Intelligence Platform – the comprehensive source of news and analysis across the buy- and sell- side.
Gain access to:
- A single source of in-depth news, insight and analysis across Asset Management, Securities Finance, Custody, Fund Services and Derivatives
- Our interactive database, optimized to enable you to summarise data and build graphs outlining market activity
- Exclusive whitepapers, supplements and industry analysis curated and published by Futures & Options World
- Breaking news, daily and weekly alerts on the markets most relevant to you