• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Harley

Financial Risk Management - Case hardening

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A placeholder post here until Admin's confirmed they're cool with me signing up.

I'm a bit of a finance bod who spent Q1 this year on financial (especially retirement) planning stuff.

I realised risk management was key - part of wealth preservation.

Yep, three full time months!  To be added to many more.  But nothing as scientific as this time.

The idea of this topic is to discuss financial risks and mitigating actions.

Please note we're not talking about technical trading risks as in risk-reward and money management. 

In a way it's a spin off of the deflation thread - that makes this stuff even more important than usual.

Plus Spunko wanted more stuff down here in this part of the board.

I'm looking to discuss a whole range of risks associated with personal financial management (sequential risk, security, ..).

I've done a number of deep dives and, quelle surprise, things are not quite as comfortable as they'll have you believe.

For example, I've actually read the hundreds of ETF prospectus pages and actually know what I'm buying.

And I've actually researched who's lending those ETFs out to whom and thought about what could go wrong.

But this topic will be no good if it is merely a "project fear" fest - citing possible mitigating actions is key.

Plus, please do not rely on anything here - it is to stimulate thought - do your own diligence. 

And risk management is very much a personal endeavour - no one size fits all.

But being forewarned is being forearmed.

Edited by Harley
Format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harley said:

A placeholder post here until Admin's confirmed they're cool with me signing up.

I'm a bit of a finance bod who spent Q1 this year on financial (especially retirement) planning stuff, key in which was risk management.

Yep, three full time months!  To be added to many more.  But nothing as scientific as this time.

The idea of this topic is to discuss financial risks and mitigating actions.  Note not trading risks as in risk-reward and money management. 

In a way it's a spin off of the deflation thread in that what might be coming down the pipe makes such stuff even more important than usual.

Plus Spunko wanted more stuff down here in this part of the board.

I'm looking to discuss a whole range of risks associated with personal financial management from counterparties, sequential risk, security, etc.

I've done a number of deep dives and, quelle surprise, things are not quite as comfortable as they'll have you believe.

For example, I've actually read the hundreds of ETF prospectus pages and actually know what I'm buying.

And I've actually researched who's lending those ETFs out to whom and thought about what could go wrong.

But this topic will be no good if it is merely a "project fear" fest - citing possible mitigating actions is key.

Plus, please do not rely on anything here - it is to stimulate thought - do your own diligence. 

And risk management is very much a personal endeavour - no one size fits all.

But being forewarned is being forearmed.

We don’t have admin, we have Spunko (all hail Spunko). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎07‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 21:42, Admiral Pepe said:

Come on Harley get on your bike. Let us hear what you have to say

Apologies, just worked that out...chuckle, chuckle!

It be big, black and noisy and I's be a scared of it!

Edited by Harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic:  A possible risk management process in overview (v1)

Process steps:

1. Brainstorm the risk "universe" (to come).  Usually a standard set at this point.  No attempt at this point to assess their relevance to your own personal circumstances.  Key is to have the full "universe" or list from which to work so there is an audit trail and you can come back later and re-perform the assessment as your circumstances change (e.g. more assets, older, different job, family, etc).  Just a high level list at this point.

2.  Break down each risk listed above into specific causes (or sources) relevant to your own current circumstances.  Don't go mad down some rabbit hole at this point.  The art is to identify ("frame") causes of risk at a level of detail sufficient to be wholly mitigated by practical actions as well as to better "flesh out" the generic risk into things more relevant and meaningful to you.

3. Identify mitigating actions to cover the identified causes of risk.  A bit of "chicken and egg" with #2 as you're looking for matching pairs or cause of risk and mitigation action.  Actions can take a variety of forms from "do nothing" (i.e. accept risk as it is), "monitor" (i.e. do nothing but keep an eye on it), give it to someone else (e.g. pay someone to manage it), do act x (e.g. follow a set % of assets exposed to any fund holder).

4.  Choose which mitigating actions you will take.  This is separate from #3 because you will need to subjectively compare your expected probability of the cause of risk occurring against the cost (and effectiveness) of the mitigating action.  You can do this at a high or low level.  At the low level, you would multiple the expected probability of the cause of risk occurring against the expected loss to give you the expected risk (in monetary terms).  You would then compare this against the costs of each of the available mitigation actions and then choose a level of coverage (set of mitigating actions) you're happy with.  

5.  Prepare a mitigation action plan and action.  Work out how and by when you will have implemented the selected set of mitigation actions.  You may choose to start with the "low hanging fruit" or the longer implementation ones, or whatever.  You may also wish to test some actions to ensure they work (tested your back-ups lately?).   

6.  Monitor your plan on an ongoing basis to ensure it remains relevant and complete - e.g. due to your personal circumstances, for changes in legislation, changes in counterparties, etc.  Consider periodic testing where appropriate.

OK, big picture stuff almost over. The base of this topic is to hit #2 (and #3 where possible) hard, preferably with the oddities we may not all know about (like they can apparently take brokerage insolvency fees out of your funds, regardless of the FSCS limits). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Topic: The risk universe (v1)

Quite a few sources out on the Net listing the "standard" (generic) investment, retirement planning, etc risks.

Here's an initial list (with an added retirement focus): 

- Income - inability to add to wealth with current employment, including spending beyond means and loss of job

- Debt - inability to service debt (pay interest) as well as meeting calls on debt repayment (scheduled or not)

- Inflation - income and assets do not grow with inflation 

- Legacy - insufficient funds to meet legacy commitments during life (e.g. school fees) and after life (i.e. will)

- Employer - loss of employer benefits in retirement (company pension, shares and other benefits)

- Cascade - a loss due to the realisation one risk leads to one or more further disproportionate (consequential) losses 

- Judgement - loss of sound judgement in managing your personal financial situation

- Theft - by a family member, stranger, or custodian, including fraud and identity theft

- Costs - unforeseen costs such as long term care (Alzheimers, accident, etc), familial obligations, house, assets, etc

- Divorce - economic insecurity and loss due to divorce

- Regulatory - changes in tax, benefit, etc rules, but also includes political and social risks (e.g legal but not acceptable)

- Sequential - unrecoverable "shock" negative portfolio returns at the start of retirement

- Longevity - deplete retirement pot too soon by living longer than planned or spending too much in retirement

- Advice - act on bad advice and/or information, including acting when poorly informed (no advice)

- Collapse - institutional as well as security related (e.g. counterparty goes bust)

- Market - adverse movements in asset prices, interest rates, exchange rates, etc, an overly concentrated portfolio, etc

- Access - unable to access cash (liquidity) and other assets when needed (could cause a cascade loss)

- Forced early retirement - retirement plans no longer valid

- Planning - planning assumptions (e.g. interest rates) initially invalid or become invalid

So a bit wider than just looking at portfolio risk.  No hard and fast list (e.g. could put Inflation under Planning or Divorce under Costs).  Probably several other higher level risks missed out.  A key point about the more retirement related risks is they can often happen before retirement!

Edited by Harley
Format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Risk: Collapse

Cause: Breach of FSCS protection limits?

Description: Looks like the collapse of Beaufort Securities earlier this year has highlighted the risk that the administrators in insolvency in a collapsed broker can use client funds to pay their (quite possibly eye watering fees), regardless of the FSC protection limits.  I can't find the link but I thought I read an article citing the relevant statutory section number and about a group campaigning to get this changed.  I'm wondering if it could be the case that you've invested prudently, the broker has correctly segregated client funds, you've kept below the £50,000 FSCS protection limit, etc but you still lose out because of high administrator fees.  Looks like this particular case has been resolved (FSCS renegotiating fees and picking up the tab) but still a possibility?  Imagine a broker going bust with clients all having £50,000.  Does the FSCS have to pay the administration costs and everyone get backs £50,000?  Or do the rules optionally allow for the costs to come out of the £50,000's?

Links: https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/investments/information-customers-beaufort-securities-limited-bsl-and-beaufort-asset-clearing-services-limited/

Mitigation:  Regardless, DYOR (easier said than done)?  Spread cash around brokers (more cost and effort)?  Join the campaign (if it exists)?  Investigate further (maybe not correct and everything fine)?  Accept the risk?  Something else? 

Edited by Harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk:  Collapse

Cause:  Securities lending

Description:  So I've been a clever bunny and decided to invest in a nicely diversified ETF (maybe applies to a trust, etc too, dunno) so as to avoid putting all my eggs in one basket by buying just the one share or bond.  Naturally, being savvy I searched around for the ETF with the lowest fees, best tracking error, contains only real shares (no synthetics), etc.  What could possibly go wrong?  Well, I started reading about securities lending.  Apparently quite a common practice so nothing to worry about (not sure about the precise rationale there).  Sounds like some ETFs can lend quite a high percentage of their stock or bond holdings to a third party (e.g. banks or even shorters of the very stocks).  They get collateral (other assets) in return (120% I think) and a fee, part of which lowers the cost they charge to me.  I also think some providers even openly list details of what's been lent to whom.  But my concerns include that's not what I bough the ETF for and is 120% really good enough and how secure is it?  Then I thought I read that a bank, wanting to lower its risk could borrow ETF bond holdings, exchanging them for equity.  In that case, would I not have invested in a bond fund to lower risk only to find it is holding equities, albeit only on loan and at a higher (120% or whatever) collateral rate?  It may all be fine but worries me a bit.  Has all this been stress tested in real life?

Links:  https://www.justetf.com/uk/news/etf/security-lending-and-etfs.html and loads of others.

Mitigations: Ignore ('cause all looks reasonably regulated, etc)?  Pick ETFs (maybe with higher fees) which don't lend too much (I saw a list somewhere on the Net)?  Limit ETF usage to a "comfortable" level?  Investigate any regulatory protection (FSCS, etc)?  Something else?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Risk: Collapse, Market, Access, Cascade

Cause: Synthetic ETF?

Description:  This one hurt, quite a lot, for a long time.  Not sure if "synthetic ETF" is quite the right cause but here's the story.  I bought a commodity ETF once as it's pretty hard for the retail investor to invest directly in commodities.  I bought it with the intention of keeping it for a while as I wanted commodities in my balanced portfolio.  Clever boy!  Yes, some of these ETFs lose money over time ("carry costs") but I think this one was OK (I certainly looked first).  Anyways, along comes the 2008/9 crash and bang goes AIG who until then I had not really heard of.  Problem was they were the insurers of the ETF or something so as I understand it the ETF provider had to try to find a new insurer.  Presumably a bit tricky at the time.  Anyways, can't trade the ETF and had to wait.  Lost loads by the time I was allowed to sell it.  Would have sold much earlier and could have made money with the proceeds elsewhere (they were busy times!).  Or at least stemmed the loss (I held the remains for many years after without any success but maybe that was more about commodities in general).   Until this day I'm still not clear on what happened.  Suppose I could try reading the ETF prospectus but, well, it's all so complicated! 

Links: Don't go there, sad!

Mitigations:  RTFM?  Limit ETF usage to a "comfortable" level?  Diversify across ETFs?  In this particular case, use producer company equity shares as proxies instead of the underlying commodity (tracking performance?)?  Something else? 

Edited by Harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Risk:  Regulatory

Cause:  Varied and wonderful!

Description:  This is the one keeping me up at night.  Ok maybe tin foil hat making time but think the "impossible" because that's what maybe gets you in the end!  Big picture: fiscal and monetary policy have maybe been exhausted so what's left?  Rules, lots of rules!  And how many nice rules do you know?  Ask Plod and they will say a crime needs means and opportunity.  And this is where my alarm bells start ringing as I watch this "boiling frog".  Means - well just look at all the rules that have been introduced on the back of the T-threat, often leaving one wondering about their effectiveness for the stated purpose.  I could list most of them but most would not have heard of them, not investigated, etc.  Take the latest bank thingy where all the banks have standardised IT interfaces so you can ask companies to go into your accounts and tell you how you can buy cheaper tooth paste or something.  Standardised ("Open" in the vernacular) - essential for big data.  OK, tin foil hat, etc maybe.  Guess we'll see.  And on opportunity - that's seems to be the job of the MSM to confuse, soften up, trivialise, and change attitudes to create it.  Pass another hat!  Maybe we could all brainstorm things but one I'll mention would be precious metals confiscation.  Never happen I hear them say.  Doesn't have to - just raise the rate of CGT on it (already so in the US?), increase the burden, etc.  Then there's similar soft versions of capital controls, the forced buying of say government "infrastructure" bonds within SIPPs, ban on cash to enforce negative interest rates (spend it or lose it), etc.  Quiz: What do Cyprus, Poland, Argentina, Ireland, Portugal, France, Hungary, UK have in common?  Answer in links below.    

Links:

https://pensionsandsavings.com/polish-pension-confiscation-how-can-we-protect-private-pensions/ 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-06/poland-confiscates-half-private-pension-funds-cut-sovereign-debt-load

And so on - got any gooduns to share?.

Mitigations:  The George Best portfolio?  Offshore like the elites (watch the film "Spidersweb")?  Front run and buy bonds maybe at better value?  Dig a hole in the garden?  NS&I or whatever?  Something else?  

Edited by Harley
Bits and bobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk:  Collapse, Cascade

Cause: ETF (especially PMs) custodians

Description:  Now so far it may seem I'm tearing into ETFs.  Not really.  They have their place and I was a very early and eager adopter.  I just worry about complexity and the distance between me and my assets.  I used to be just ETFs, but am now more balanced.  I'm going to do this one from memory because I haven't done enough wrong to you for you to ask me to re-read those ETF prospectuses and other documents.  You may have spotted that I'm, well, a bit structured.  Trust me, even I wanted to die while reading that lot!  What jumped out at me, in addition to all the assumptions, etc (more later), were all the counterparties involved and the clever charts showing how they all worked together in harmony.  You've got the ETF provider, market maker, and custodian (maybe some others).  Sometimes several of some of them.  So you buy a physical precious metals ETF because you want exposure to "hard" assets only to find you're quite detached from the said "underlying".  Then there's the whole allocated versus unallocated question (which is not related to just ETFs) which exposes you, I think, to the possibility of having the holding taken by the trustees (maybe only temporarily) in an insolvency (as you can't readily prove it's yours).  But then again you golds bugs, maybe it's all better than nothing.  Note this is not a criticism as I can't actually see how else they could do it and at least they hold the underlying (although not so for all).  Indeed credit to them for even getting it up and running.

Links:  Sorry, but got to an ETF provider web page, download and prospectus and read, and read, and snnnnnnnn….!  Maybe also read up about ETFs versus ETNs (one seems more like a loan type instrument). 

Mitigations:  Live with it (such is life)?  Hold PM's etc in a range of forms (physical, storage, Perth Mint or whatever, etc) ?  Maybe some providers are better than others (although hard to see how)?  Use the equities as proxies (tracking error?)?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk: Market

Cause:  Bond funds (or is that ETFs?)

Description:  Jim Puplava has been doing a cracking weekend podcast over at Financialsense.com since I was a nipper.  He's a fund manager who likes to do these things.  He's been banging on about bond funds a while (almost as much as about "Peak Oil").  It got mentioned again this past weekend in conversation with a guest.  He asked why some bond ETFs (funds?) had apparently lost "dividends" (in addition to a lower price) when we have rising bond interest rates.  Ok, maybe more complex with the approaching yield curve inversion, etc but he probably would have gone into that if it was relevant.  I think they said something about the funds had to deal with net redemptions (i.e. sell bonds to meet withdrawals from people worried about it's loss in value) so could not readily invest in the new higher yield bonds.  It's an example of his concern about bond funds that need to handle redemptions and purchases unlike his preferred "bond ladder" approach where you can personally hold bonds to maturity and so avoid loss of market value. Regardless, trouble is a bond ladder seems more a US market opportunity then here in the UK so maybe we don't have a huge choice.  Maybe someone can explain, clarify, comment better than me?

Links: https://www.financialsense.com/markets-dip-rate-jump-inflation-concerns about 36 minutes in 

Mitigations:  Ignore (accept a potentially lower performance)?  Good luck buying a bonds ladder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Inoperational Bumblebee said:

Wow, I said I'd pop over to the thread but this is heavyweight stuff. Bit late in the evening for me to digest it right now sorry, but I will be back at some point.

I suspect @sancho panza might be interested in this thread.

Yep, boring as F! I have loads more to add sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk:  Theft

Cause:  The Hello Caller scam

Description:  Those Radio 4 "You and Yours" fans will be well versed with this one.  It's been a regular feature on their programme for quite a while now but seems no-one's going to fix it.  Now I may have this wrong but here goes.  This nice lady calls from your bank or CID and tells you you've been hacked.  You need to move your money or whatever.  Clearly she could be a fraudster she says so please call the bank (or CID or whatever the story) on this (legit) telephone number.  Legit 'cause you went on-line and checked.  Clever you.  Feeling confident, you call the number and sure enough its all validated and.....bang goes your dosh.  How did that happen?  A technical feature of the phone system.  Apparently, if I call you and the call finishes with you putting the phone down, you're still actually connected to me if I don't also hang up.  So when you call out you actually are still connected to me.  And I can pretend to be whomever I want to be!   

Per AgeUK: "Scammers now have the technology to mimic an official telephone number so it comes up on your caller ID display (if you have one on your phone). This can trick you into thinking the caller is really from a legitimate organisation, such as a bank or utility company. If you’re in any doubt, hang up and call the organisation directly. If possible, call them from different phone as scammers can keep the phone line open, so that even if you hang up and call the organisation directly, the line may still be connected to the scammer. If it’s not possible to use another phone then wait for at least 10 minutes before you call".

Links: http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/48253/~/security-warning---fraud-activities-or-scams

Mitigations:  Per the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk:  Theft

Cause:  SIM card

Description:  So now we have enhanced security on many internet sites where we have to enter a confirmation code which has been texted(?) to us as part of the logon.  It's called two factor authentication or something.  Great.  Ah, but again as our Radio 4 listeners will know, not really.  The fraudsters have two ways around this.  First is they walk into a shop or call and say they lost their sim card and ask for a new one.  Second, given the first was being addressed (a bit) was to get an insider in the telecoms company to get one for them.  They use the SIM (yours having been deactivated presumably as a security procedure!).  Pretty easy after that if they can get some other bist of data.

Link:  https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/10/ee-sim-card-swap-fraud-security

Link:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/6350188/sim-swap-scam-tsb-customers/

Mitigations:  See links 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk:  Theft

Cause:  Eavesdropping

Description:  As a rule, I consider so called IT theft to be fundamentally independent of IT in that the IT is just a passive tool.  The breach occurs by a human say quessing your password or whatever.  Like those Russians spy hacker types recently caught sitting outside that Dutch building with a car full of electrical stuff.  They still needed some "human intelligence" to get hold of some wifi logons and passwords.  But some so called sexy technical thefts really are a bit like that.  I think this one happened to me while sitting around the pool with my phone on holiday.  I was using an unsecured wifi connection and maybe someone (either a third party or actually part of the legit wifi service) could and was reading my internet traffic, including my email logon credentials, etc.  This has become quite an easy process so not just the preserve of geeks.  Illegal, but so is the potentially ensuing theft or randsom.  Take care looking at your portfolio or reading emails when out and about!.      

Link:  https://www.pcworld.com/article/2043095/heres-what-an-eavesdropper-sees-when-you-use-an-unsecured-wi-fi-hotspot.html

Link:  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eavesdropping-attack.asp

Mitigations:  See links.  Use a VPN (if you trust the VPN provider and their providers!).  Don't work when on holiday!

Edited by Harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take care looking at your portfolio or reading emails when out and about!.      

---

I think if you are looking at your portfolio while on the move, then that could lead to over trading.

Never log onto a financial site using free WiFi.

Sure use a website where you can look at prices and the general market without log-ons. The market doesn't move that fast. If we see that the market is controlled by large money mangers, then they aren't going to jump in and out day trading generally. Moves take weeks or even months to play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 201p said:

Never log onto a financial site using free WiFi.

Or any site holding credit card details or any personal data.  An identity thief would love some time in your gmail (and therefore wider Google), etc account, especially if you have the default permissions or did not switch them back off the last time they mysteriously got changed.  Using a Https site may help but I'm not sure.  Then you have the whole fake website stuff, redirects with passthrough presumably being easier if you're in their environment.

Edited by Harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2018 at 16:41, Harley said:

Risk: Collapse

Cause: Breach of FSCS protection limits?

Description: Looks like the collapse of Beaufort Securities earlier this year has highlighted the risk that the administrators in insolvency in a collapsed broker can use client funds to pay their (quite possibly eye watering fees), regardless of the FSC protection limits.  I can't find the link but I thought I read an article citing the relevant statutory section number and about a group campaigning to get this changed.  I'm wondering if it could be the case that you've invested prudently, the broker has correctly segregated client funds, you've kept below the £50,000 FSCS protection limit, etc but you still lose out because of high administrator fees.  Looks like this particular case has been resolved (FSCS renegotiating fees and picking up the tab) but still a possibility?  Imagine a broker going bust with clients all having £50,000.  Does the FSCS have to pay the administration costs and everyone get backs £50,000?  Or do the rules optionally allow for the costs to come out of the £50,000's?

Links: https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/investments/information-customers-beaufort-securities-limited-bsl-and-beaufort-asset-clearing-services-limited/

Mitigation:  Regardless, DYOR (easier said than done)?  Spread cash around brokers (more cost and effort)?  Join the campaign (if it exists)?  Investigate further (maybe not correct and everything fine)?  Accept the risk?  Something else? 

I'll revisit later to add more but the collapse of brokers is an edgy question as Beaufort were the first decent size collapse of this cycle.

I've posted on ToS about how the increasing use of nominees and the loss of Crest personal accounts was taking your assets in to be the Brokers assets in the event of failing.We now hold UK stocks as certificates where we can.Much as I don't want to I think we'll have to leave our small local broker sometime soon.

On 09/10/2018 at 17:12, Harley said:

Risk:  Collapse

Cause:  Securities lending

Description:  So I've been a clever bunny and decided to invest in a nicely diversified ETF (maybe applies to a trust, etc too, dunno) so as to avoid putting all my eggs in one basket by buying just the one share or bond.  Naturally, being savvy I searched around for the ETF with the lowest fees, best tracking error, contains only real shares (no synthetics), etc.  What could possibly go wrong?  Well, I started reading about securities lending.  Apparently quite a common practice so nothing to worry about (not sure about the precise rationale there).  Sounds like some ETFs can lend quite a high percentage of their stock or bond holdings to a third party (e.g. banks or even shorters of the very stocks).  They get collateral (other assets) in return (120% I think) and a fee, part of which lowers the cost they charge to me.  I also think some providers even openly list details of what's been lent to whom.  But my concerns include that's not what I bough the ETF for and is 120% really good enough and how secure is it?  Then I thought I read that a bank, wanting to lower its risk could borrow ETF bond holdings, exchanging them for equity.  In that case, would I not have invested in a bond fund to lower risk only to find it is holding equities, albeit only on loan and at a higher (120% or whatever) collateral rate?  It may all be fine but worries me a bit.  Has all this been stress tested in real life?

Links:  https://www.justetf.com/uk/news/etf/security-lending-and-etfs.html and loads of others.

Mitigations: Ignore ('cause all looks reasonably regulated, etc)?  Pick ETFs (maybe with higher fees) which don't lend too much (I saw a list somewhere on the Net)?  Limit ETF usage to a "comfortable" level?  Investigate any regulatory protection (FSCS, etc)?  Something else?     

There's loads of collateal lending that goes on unremarkably.It happened with CLO's back in 08 and it was only when the first big defaults occurred that it suddenly dawned on authorities that there might be a problem.

 

There';s a phrase I've forgotten for now for when CLO A gets lent through the banking system with each subsequent banks lending out a smaller proportion of it.

 

Edit to add-rehypothecation of financial assets

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rehypothecation.asp

Rehypothecation

What is 'Rehypothecation'

Rehypothecation is the practice by banks and brokers of using, for their own purposes, assets that have been posted as collateral by their clients. Clients who permit rehypothecation of their collateral may be compensated either through a lower cost of borrowing or a rebate on fees. In a typical example of rehypothecation, securities that have been posted with a prime brokerage as collateral by a hedge fund are used by the brokerage to back its own transactions and trades.

 

Edited by sancho panza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Inoperational Bumblebee said:

Wow, I said I'd pop over to the thread but this is heavyweight stuff. Bit late in the evening for me to digest it right now sorry, but I will be back at some point.

I suspect @sancho panza might be interested in this thread.

Thanks for the heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.