IIROC proposes adjusting margin requirements for agency lending agreements

27 février 2015

Ce billet est disponible en anglais seulement.

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada yesterday proposed amendments to Dealer Member Form 1 intended to address concerns that current rules do not set out specific margin requirements for agency cash and security borrowing and lending arrangements, as well as the fact that current rules do not have the same margin requirements for arrangements with acceptable counterparties versus regulated entity counterparties.

The concerns are especially relevant considering the recent trend involving dealers entering into borrowing and lending arrangements with custodians that act as agents for counterparties. According to IIROC, the risk of such agreements is equivalent to comparable "principal" arrangements. However, since Dealer Member Form 1 does not cover these types of agency agreements, dealers are currently required to provide additional margin in these cases. 

To address these concerns, the amendments are designed to ensure that agency arrangements are treated for margin purposes in the same way as equivalent principal arrangements between dealers and custodians. As such, the counterparty credit risk classification of the custodian would determine the level of margin required. Custodians that are active in the security borrowing and lending business are typically financial institutions that meet the definition of "acceptable institutions" and are considered low credit risk clients.

Proposals to amend the margin requirements were first published last year, and yesterday's release takes into account comments received from stakeholders. IIROC is accepting comments on its revised proposal until May 27, 2015. For more information, see IIROC Notice 15-0053.

MISE EN GARDE : Cette publication a pour but de donner des renseignements généraux sur des questions et des nouveautés d’ordre juridique à la date indiquée. Les renseignements en cause ne sont pas des avis juridiques et ne doivent pas être traités ni invoqués comme tels. Veuillez lire notre mise en garde dans son intégralité au www.stikeman.com/avis-juridique.

Restez au fait grâce à Notre savoir