Partial Settlements: Frequently Asked Questions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Frequently Asked Questions October 1, 2020 Partial Settlements Background On September 13, 2018, under the framework of the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR), the regulatory technical standards on settlement discipline was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU). The current entry into force date is February 1, 2021, however the European Securities Market Association (ESMA) have proposed a 1 year postponement to February 1, 2022, subject to ratification by the European Commission, Parliament and Council. The new discipline intends to improve a firm’s settlement efficiency. The onus will be on firms to put in their settlement instructions and to match these settlements in good time. A large part of CSDR facilitates the objectives of Target2-Securities (T2S) regulation by the introduction of a securities discipline regime. This harmonises operational aspects of securities settlement, including the provision of shorter settlement periods; mandatory buy-ins; and cash penalties, to prevent and address settlement fails. The CSDR Settlement Discipline Regime RTS requires European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) Central Securities Depositories (CSDs), to allow market participants to partially settle outstanding transactions in order to maximise settlement efficiency and lessen the impact of penalties and mandatory buy- ins. 1. What is partial settlement? Partial settlement is where a transaction cannot be fully settled as the quantity of securities required to satisfy the total delivery is unavailable in the delivering party’s account. Therefore, anything less than the full delivery is considered to be a partial settlement. There is no limit to how many partial settlements can be made until full delivery is satisfied. CSDs are required to provide participants with functionality to partially settle transactions. Partial settlement (made on intended settlement date (ISD) and up to the buy-in deadline date -1 business day) can reduce the penalty fines payable by the delivering party. On the deadline date of the buy -in extension period (e.g. ISD +4 for liquid securities) the regulation states that any available securities in the delivering party’s account must be used to partially settle, unless the settlement instruction is on hold. The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) have produced a paper on the best practice. ‘Auto-partial settlement’ is the possibility to have a transaction subject to an automatic partialisation process by the CSDs, which differs from ‘Partial Hold & Release’, which is the possibility to release part of a transaction placed on hold. This document covers Auto-partial settlement only. 2. How will Auto-Partial Settlement work? EU/EEA CSDs will run their auto-partial settlement processes throughout the day, whereby available positions will be automatically partially settled, providing the transaction has matched and both trading parties agree to a partial settlement. This is to ensure settlement performance is maximised and settlement fines are not applied to the full trade quantity. If settlement instructions contain the settlement transaction condition Information Classification: Public Page 1 of 8 indicator (STCO) to partial (PART), and with some CSDs if the STCO is not provided (blank), then the CSDs settlement cycle will allow the matched instruction to partially settle and this will send BNY Mellon a settlement status message for the amount that has settled. BNY Mellon will automatically split the original (parent) transaction and two new child instructions will be created, one for the amount that can be settled, and a second for the remaining unsettled amount. 3. Which EU/EEA markets will BNY Mellon provide an Auto-Partial Settlement Service? BNY Mellon will provide auto-partial settlement service in the following markets: Country CSD/Sub- BNY Mellon Auto-Partial Settlement T2S Market Partial possible if custodian Name Service Available Y/N STCO = blank Austria OeKB/Unicredit Yes (implementation date to be Y Y Bank confirmed) Belgium Euroclear Yes Y Y Belgium/NBB Czech Republic SKD and SKD – No partial settlement N N/A CDCP/Citibank CDCP – Yes (implementation date to be confirmed) N Not currently Denmark VP Securities/SEB Yes Denmark Y Y Euromarket – ICSD Clearstream Internal – Yes(implementation date to N Y (See third column Banking SA be confirmed) for specific (Luxembourg) External – Yes, w ith markets w here limitations) auto-partial settlement is possible Bridge – Yes (implementation date to be confirmed) Euromarket – ICSD Euroclear Bank Internal – Yes N Y External – Yes, w ith markets w here auto-partial settlement is possible Bridge – Yes (implementation date to be confirmed) Finland Euroclear N Y Sw eden/SEB Yes Finland France Euroclear France Yes Y Y Germany Clearstream Y Y Banking AG Yes (Frankfurt) Greece BoG/BNP Paribas Yes (implementation date to be Y N Athens confirmed) Hungary Keler/Citibank Yes, a limited service w ill be provided Y Y (See third column until KELER introduce a partial for specific release service (implementation date limitations) to be confirmed) Italy Monte Titoli Yes Y Y Netherlands Euroclear Y Y Yes Netherlands Norw ay Euroclear N Y Norw ay/SEB Yes Norw ay Information Classification: Public Page 2 of 8 Country CSD/Sub- BNY Mellon Auto-Partial Settlement T2S Market Partial possible if custodian Name Service Available Y/N STCO = blank Portugal Interbolsa/Citibank Yes (implementation date to be Y Y confirmed) Spain Iberclear/Banco Yes for receives only. Y Y (See third column Bilbao Viscaya Partial settlement for deliveries for specific Argentaria (implementation date to be confirmed) limitations) Spain Iberclear/Banco Yes for receives only. Y Y (See third column Santander Partial settlement for deliveries for specific (implementation date to be confirmed) limitations) Sw eden Euroclear N Y Yes for equities, no for debt Sw eden/SEB instruments Sw eden Sw itzerland SIS SIX/Credit Yes on T2S for EUR settlement, for Y Y Suisse receives only United Kingdom Euroclear UK & N Y Yes Ireland Further EU/EEA CSDs are expected to implement their auto-partial settlement facility after BNY Mellon introduces auto-partial settlement functionality. Where BNY Mellon uses a sub-custodian, then the sub- custodian will also need to support auto-partial settlement in order for BNY Mellon to provide this service. BNY Mellon will notify clients of these market changes as they take place and advise when we will switch the market to our auto-partial settlement service. This will be delivered via NetInfo®. EU/EEA CSDs can apply under CSDR Settlement Discipline RTS Article 12 for derogation from auto-partial settlement if either the rate or value of settlement fails are below certain thresholds, and BNY Mellon will not therefore be able to offer an auto-partial settlement service in those markets. 4. How will BNY Mellon support Auto-Partial Settlement? Current Partial Settlement Service BNY Mellon defaults all T2S EU/EEA market instructions not to partially settle. However we do offer clients the ability to instruct partial settlement for Receipt instructions (both free of payment and versus payment) only via a standing instruction set up or on a trade by trade basis through the transaction condition indicator (STCO). For all other EU/EEA (non-T2S) markets where partial settlement can occur, including through BNY Mellon’s sub-custodian network, we do not currently provide partial settlement. The exception is CREST (Euroclear UK and Ireland CSD) where partial settlement occurs automatically as this is existing CREST functionality. New Auto-Partial Settlement Service BNY Mellon’s auto-partial settlement service will be expanded to allow partial settlement in all EU/EEA markets, provided the CSDs and the sub-custodians offer the service. It will be possible to instruct on a trade by trade basis by using the transaction condition indicator (STCO) PART or NPAR, or to set up standing instructions per Custody account according to the below criteria: EU/EEA Direct Segregated market account: Omnibus market account: and Sub-custodian Standing instruction on receipts and Standing instruction on receipts only Markets deliveries See question 6 below for standing instruction preferences. Information Classification: Public Page 3 of 8 Please note that BNY Mellon will no longer apply the default of non-partial settlement (NPAR) to client instructions received without a settlement transaction condition (STCO) indicator and without any standing instruction set up and will send to the market with a blank STCO indicator. Consequently, this may result in a partial settlement depending on the CSD’s auto-partial process and/or trading parties instruction. Clients not wanting partial settlement can set up a standing instruction of NPARALL on their Custody accounts. BNY Mellon is intending to also introduce partial hold and release functionality (MT530) on deliveries from omnibus accounts (provided the CSDs and the sub-custodians offer the service), which will be controlled by the position management process within BNY Mellon’s settlement system application. We will provide additional information as soon as possible. *Please note that auto-partial settlement is not currently supported for Free of Payment asset movements related to BNY Mellon's Triparty Collateral Management service and transactions relating to this activity will not be included in the auto-partial settlement service implementation. We will provide further guidance should auto-partial settlement
Recommended publications
  • Share-Based Payments – IFRS 2 Handbook

    Share-Based Payments – IFRS 2 Handbook

    Share-based payments IFRS 2 handbook November 2018 kpmg.com/ifrs Contents Variety increases complexity 1 1 Introduction 2 2 Overview 8 3 Scope 15 4 Classification of share-based payment transactions 49 5 Classification of conditions 66 6 Equity-settled share-based payment transactions with employees 81 7 Cash-settled share-based payment transactions with employees 144 8 Employee transactions – Choice of settlement 161 9 Modifications and cancellations of employee share-based payment transactions 177 10 Group share-based payments 208 11 Share-based payment transactions with non-employees 257 12 Replacement awards in a business combination 268 13 Other application issues in practice 299 14 Transition requirements and unrecognised share-based payments 317 15 First-time adoption of IFRS 320 Appendices I Key terms 333 II Valuation aspects of accounting for share-based payments 340 III Table of concordance between IFRS 2 and this handbook 374 Detailed contents 378 About this publication 385 Keeping in touch 386 Acknowledgements 388 Variety increases complexity In October 2018, the International Accounting Standards Board (the Board) published the results of its research project on sources of complexity in applying IFRS 2 Share-based Payment. The Board concluded that no further amendments to IFRS 2 are needed. It felt the main issues that have arisen in practice have been addressed and there are no significant financial reporting problems to address through changing the standard. However, it did acknowledge that a key source of complexity is the variety and complexity of terms and conditions included in share-based payment arrangements, which cannot be solved through amendments to the standard.
  • Collateralized Loan Obligations (Clos) July 2021 ASSET MANAGEMENT | FACT SHEET

    Collateralized Loan Obligations (Clos) July 2021 ASSET MANAGEMENT | FACT SHEET

    ® Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs) July 2021 ASSET MANAGEMENT | FACT SHEET Conning believes that CLOs are a compelling asset class for insurers in today’s market. As floating-rate securities, they offer income protection in varying market environments while also minimizing duration. At the same time, CLO securities (i.e. tranches) typically offer higher yields than similarly rated corporate bonds and other structured products. The asset class also provides strong capital preservation through structural protections and investor-oriented covenants. Historically, the CLO structure has proven to be extremely resilient through multiple market cycles. In fact there has never been a default in the AAA and AA -rated CLO debt tranches.1 Negative correlation to U.S. Treasury Bonds and low correlations to U.S. investment grade corporate bonds and equities present valuable diversification benefits. CLOs also offer an opportunity to access debt issuers that do not participate in the high-yield bond markets. How CLOs Work Team The CLO collateral manager purchases a portfolio of loans (typically 150-300) Andrew Gordon using the proceeds from the sale of CLO tranches (debt & equity). The interest Octagon, CEO earned from the loan collateral pool is used to pay the coupon to the CLO liabili- 37 years of experience ties. The residual cash flow, after paying the interest on the CLO liabilities and all expenses, is distributed to the holders of the CLO equity. Notably, loan portfolio Gretchen Lam, CFA losses are first absorbed by these equity investors. CLOs are typically rated by Octagon, Senior Portfolio Manager S&P, Moody’s and / or Fitch.
  • Banknote Automation WP

    Banknote Automation WP

    IMX WHITE PAPER Banknote and Precious Metal Trading – The Case For Automation Greater regulation | More complex compliance | Fierce market competition IMX WHITE PAPER ABSTRACT Many banknote and precious metals businesses have already adopted an automated approach to managing operations. Indeed, such is the proliferation of automation in this sector today that any operator who has not yet switched to the rapid, accurate and efficient facilities of systems-based transaction and management could now be said to be at a serious competitive disadvantage. This paper explores the compelling reasons why a growing number of successful dealing businesses have embraced the advantages of automation. It sets out the principles of systems based transaction and management in terms of how these address the whole spectrum of business needs and governance, as well as the mounting demands of regulation and compliance in an increasingly complex sector. IMX WHITE PAPER THE EMERGING BUSINESS CLIMATE All banknote and precious metals trading businesses face emerging challenges and inherent risks. These range from foreign exchange (FX) to credit risk, operation and dealing control, sound governance and solid audit measures - all of which must be managed in order to create and sustain a profitable business. An essential tool in maintaining competitive advantage in today's global economic and regulatory climate is a robust automated solution that specifically addresses this intricate matrix of needs. It is certainly true that non-automated organisations find up-scaling more arduous to manage. As business expands and additional traders and cash room personnel are drafted in, it becomes increasingly difficult to track inventory manually as more people are buying and selling concurrently.
  • List of All Fees for the Securitytrustsm Reloadable Visa® Prepaid Card Issued by Republic Bank of Chicago, Member FDIC, Pursuant to a License from Visa U.S.A

    List of All Fees for the Securitytrustsm Reloadable Visa® Prepaid Card Issued by Republic Bank of Chicago, Member FDIC, Pursuant to a License from Visa U.S.A

    CARDHOLDER AGREEMENT List of all fees for the SecurityTRUSTSM Reloadable Visa® Prepaid Card issued by Republic Bank of Chicago, Member FDIC, pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. All Fees Amount Details Monthly usage Monthly Fee is $7.95. The Monthly Fee is waived for the first 60 days Monthly fee $7.95 after the initial load. The Monthly Fee is also waived if you receive direct deposits of $500.00 or more every 35 days. Add money Fee of up to $5.95 may apply when reloading your Card at Retail Locations, including Green Dot® and Visa ReadyLink reload agents. This Cash reload $5.95 fee is charged by the reload agent and is subject to change. Reload locations may be found at www.insightvisa.com. Fee of up to 5% of the amount of a check loaded through third party 5%, $5.00 applications may apply, subject to a $5.00 minimum. Service is subject to Mobile check load minimum third party terms and conditions. This fee is charged by a third party and is subject to change. Spend money Per purchase transactions None No fees are assessed for domestic purchase transactions. Bill pay available when you log in to your account at Bill payment None www.insightvisa.com. There is no charge to complete a bill pay transaction. There is no charge to originate or receive transfers between your Card Card to card transfer None and another Insight-branded or SecurityTRUSTSM-branded Card. Get cash You will not be charged a fee for cash withdrawals at “in-network” ATMs.
  • •Central Securities Depository •Creating Stock •Corporate Actions •Clearance and Settlement •Fixed Income Issues •M

    ® LIFE CYCLE OF A SECURITY explores the role of central securities depositories in the United States and global capital markets, with a particular focus on the part The Depository Trust Company (DTC) plays in launching new securities issues and providing the essential services that security issuers require. The guide explains the process of creating and dis tributing stocks and bonds in the primary and secondary markets,- the details of clearing and settling retail and institutional transac tions, and the sophisticated infrastructure that enables the seamless- payment of dividends and interest, smooth management of tender offers and other corporate actions, and essential risk protection in an increasingly global environment. LIFE CYCLE OF A SECU RITY LIFE CYCLE OF A SECU RITY If trading volume between countries WHAT’S AN justifies it, CSDs are frequently linked INTERNATIONAL CSD? Central Securities Depositories electronically, and have accounts with There are currently two International The certificate stops here. each other, so that securities can be Central Securities Depositories (ICSDs), both moved electronically between them. In located in Europe: Clearstream Banking in most cases, payment for those securities Luxembourg and Euroclear Bank in Belgium. In the quest to attract capital and make shares that an issuing corporation offers is usually handled between the trading Initially created to accommodate the their economies more vibrant, most for sale in one or more countries in addi- firms’ settlement banks rather than expanding market in Eurobonds—bonds countries with active capital markets tion to its home market. This approach through the CSD, though some CSDs issued in a different currency and sold in have central securities depositories allows the corporation, working with a are equipped to handle both transfer a different country than that of the issuer, (CSDs) to provide the custody and local depositary bank, to raise capital in and payment.
  • Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation -- Lessons from the Financial Crisis

    Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation -- Lessons from the Financial Crisis

    Morten L. Bech, Antoine Martin, and James McAndrews Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation—Lessons from the Financial Crisis • The U.S. dollar clearing and settlement 1.Introduction system performed dependably during the financial crisis, processing record volumes he U.S. dollar clearing and settlement system was little and values of trades executed in stressed Tnoticed during the recent financial crisis, mainly because financial markets. it performed dependably, processing record volumes and values of trades made in stressed financial markets.1 Its • Emergency policy measures employed by successful operation was in part a result of the collaborative the Federal Reserve to provide liquidity and efforts undertaken by stakeholders over decades to improve stability to the financial system during and risk management and operational resiliency. Under the smooth after the crisis had important effects on surface, though, the dollar clearing and settlement system settlement liquidity and thus on the efficiency experienced important changes during the crisis. of clearing and settlement system activity. This article focuses on the ease with which market participants can discharge their payment and settlement obligations. We denote this as settlement liquidity. Our main • The measures led to a substantial decrease interest is on the settlement liquidity of the Federal Reserve’s in daylight overdrafts extended by the Fedwire Funds Service, the major large-value payment system Federal Reserve and an improvement in in the United States. We discuss how to measure settlement payment settlement timing. liquidity, and document the evolution of some of its key drivers over time. In particular, we show how the policy measures • The reduction in overdrafts lowered the Federal aimed at achieving financial and economic stability during and Reserve’s credit risk while the earlier settlement after the financial crisis have had a major impact on settlement time suggested significant efficiency gains and diminished operational risks.
  • Fixed Income Clearing Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities

    Fixed Income Clearing Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities

    EFFECTIVE AS OF July 19, 2021 FIXED INCOME CLEARING CORPORATION MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DIVISION CLEARING RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS RULES RULE 1 – DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................. 5 RULE 2 - MEMBERS .................................................................................................................. 37 RULE 2A – INITIAL MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 38 RULE 3 - ONGOING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 48 RULE 3A - CASH SETTLEMENT BANK MEMBERS............................................................. 60 RULE 4 – CLEARING FUND AND LOSS ALLOCATION ...................................................... 63 RULE 5 – TRADE COMPARISON............................................................................................. 79 RULE 6 – TBA NETTING ........................................................................................................... 84 RULE 7 – POOL COMPARISON AND OBLIGATIONS .......................................................... 86 RULE 8 – POOL NETTING AND EXPANDED POOL NETTING SYSTEMS ....................... 89 RULE 9 – POOL SETTLEMENT WITH THE CORPORATION .............................................. 91 RULE 10 – [RESERVED] ............................................................................................................ 96 RULE 11 – CASH SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................
  • The Guide to Securities Lending

    The Guide to Securities Lending

    3&"$)#&:0/%&91&$5"5*0/4 An Introduction to Securities Lending First Canadian Edition An Introduction to $IPPTFTFDVSJUJFTMFOEJOHTFSWJDFTXJUIBO Securities Lending JOUFSOBUJPOBMSFBDIBOEBEFUBJMFEGPDVT Mark C. Faulkner, Managing Director, Spitalfields Advisors Spitalfields Managing Director, Mark C. Faulkner, First Canadian Edition 5SVTUFECZNPSFUIBOCPSSPXFSTXPSMEXJEFJOHMPCBMNBSLFUT QMVTUIF64 BOE$BOBEB $*#$.FMMPOJTDPNNJUUFEUPQSPWJEJOHVOSJWBMMFETFDVSJUJFTMFOEJOH TFSWJDFTUP$BOBEJBOJOTUJUVUJPOBMJOWFTUPST8FMFWFSBHFOFBSMZZFBSTPG EFBMFSBOEUSBEJOHFYQFSJFODFUPIFMQDMJFOUTBDIJFWFIJHIFSSFUVSOTXJUIPVU Mark C. Faulkner, Managing Director DPNQSPNJTJOHBTTFUTFDVSJUZ 0VSTUSBUFHZJTUPNBYJNJ[FSFUVSOTBOEDPOUSPMSJTLCZGPDVTJOHJOUFOUMZPOUIF Spitalfields Advisors TUSVDUVSFBOEEFUBJMTPGFBDIMPBO5IBUJTXIZXFPGGFSBMFOEJOHQSPHSBNUIBUJT USBOTQBSFOU SJTLDPOUSPMMFEBOEEPFTOPUJNQFEFZPVSGVOETUSBEJOHBOEWBMVBUJPO QSPDFTT4PZPVDBOFYDFFEFYQFDUBUJPOT ■ (MPCBM$VTUPEZ ■ 4FDVSJUJFT-FOEJOH ■ 0VUTPVSDJOH ■ 8PSLCFODI ■ #FOFmU1BZNFOUT ■ 'PSFJHO&YDIBOHF &OBCMJOH:PVUP 'PDVTPO:PVS8PSME XXXDJCDNFMMPODPN XXXXPSLCFODIDJCDNFMMPODPN $*#$.FMMPO(MPCBM4FDVSJUJFT4FSWJDFT$PNQBOZJTBMJDFOTFEVTFSPGUIF$*#$BOE.FMMPOUSBEFNBSLT ______________________________ An Introduction to Securities Lending First Canadian Edition Mark C. Faulkner Spitalfields Advisors Limited 155 Commercial Street London E1 6BJ United Kingdom Published in Canada First published, 2006 © Mark C. Faulkner, 2006 First Edition, 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
  • Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation—Lessons from the Financial Crisis

    Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation—Lessons from the Financial Crisis

    Morten L. Bech, Antoine Martin, and James McAndrews Settlement Liquidity and Monetary Policy Implementation—Lessons from the Financial Crisis • The U.S. dollar clearing and settlement 1.Introduction system performed dependably during the financial crisis, processing record volumes he U.S. dollar clearing and settlement system was little and values of trades executed in stressed Tnoticed during the recent financial crisis, mainly because financial markets. it performed dependably, processing record volumes and values of trades made in stressed financial markets.1 Its • Emergency policy measures employed by successful operation was in part a result of the collaborative the Federal Reserve to provide liquidity and efforts undertaken by stakeholders over decades to improve stability to the financial system during and risk management and operational resiliency. Under the smooth after the crisis had important effects on surface, though, the dollar clearing and settlement system settlement liquidity and thus on the efficiency experienced important changes during the crisis. of clearing and settlement system activity. This article focuses on the ease with which market participants can discharge their payment and settlement obligations. We denote this as settlement liquidity. Our main • The measures led to a substantial decrease interest is on the settlement liquidity of the Federal Reserve’s in daylight overdrafts extended by the Fedwire Funds Service, the major large-value payment system Federal Reserve and an improvement in in the United States. We discuss how to measure settlement payment settlement timing. liquidity, and document the evolution of some of its key drivers over time. In particular, we show how the policy measures • The reduction in overdrafts lowered the Federal aimed at achieving financial and economic stability during and Reserve’s credit risk while the earlier settlement after the financial crisis have had a major impact on settlement time suggested significant efficiency gains and diminished operational risks.
  • Markit Credit Indices Primer

    Markit Credit Indices Primer

    Markit Credit Indices Primer Markit Credit Indices A Primer July 2014 1 Confidential. Copyright © 2013, Markit Group Limited. All rights reserved. www.markit.com Markit Credit Indices Primer Copyright © 2014 Markit Group Limited Any reproduction, in full or in part, in any media without the prior written permission of Markit Group Limited will subject the unauthorized party to civil and criminal penalties. Trademarks Mark-it™, Markit™, CDX™, LCDX™, ABX, CMBX, MCDX, SovX, Markit Loans™, Markit RED™, Markit Connex™, Markit Metrics™ iTraxx®, LevX® and iBoxx® are trademarks of Markit Group Limited. Other brands or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders and should be treated as such. Limited Warranty and Disclaimer Markit specifically disclaims any implied warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Markit does not warrant that the use of this publication shall be uninterrupted or error free. In no event shall Markit be liable for any damages, including without limitation, direct damages, punitive or exemplary damages, damages arising from loss of data, cost of cover, or other special, incidental, consequential or indirect damages of any description arising out of the use or inability to use the Markit system or accompanying documentation, however caused, and on any theory of liability. This guide may be updated or amended from time to time and at any time by Markit in its sole and absolute discretion and without notice thereof. Markit is not responsible for informing any client of, or providing any client with, any such update or amendment. 2 Copyright © 2014, Markit Group Limited. All rights reserved.
  • U.S. State Tobacco Settlement Revenue Securitizations

    U.S. State Tobacco Settlement Revenue Securitizations

    U.S. State Tobacco Settlement Revenue Securitizations Joshua Cain The Leonard N. Stern School of Business Glucksman Institute for Research in Securities Markets Faculty Advisor: Robert Whitelaw April 3, 2017 1 I. INTRODUCTION Tobacco settlement securitizations, also known as tobacco bonds, are a class of securities backed by the ongoing payments from a 1998 civil settlement with U.S. tobacco companies. States began to issue these bonds in 2000, and, as the market for them matured, twenty states and territories (as well as some counties and cities in certain states), executed securitization transactions. Bloomberg quoted the size of this market as $34 billion as of May 2016. (Chappatta, 2016) Today, many of these bonds are distressed, with bond ratings well into non-investment grade, or "junk", territory. The underlying reason for this is relatively simple: the settlement payments that back the bonds have been significantly lower than forecasted, mostly due to faster declines in cigarette consumption than the forecasts assumed. However, the credit outlook varies widely from bond to bond. In 2015, for example, Moody's announced ratings actions on a number of tobacco bonds, issuing both upgrades and downgrades. (Moody's Global Credit Research, 2015) The ratings issued ranged all the way from Aaa (sf) (Moody's highest category for structured finance) to Caa1 (sf) (seven notches below investment-grade). Since all tobacco settlement securitizations are backed by the same underlying cash flow, differences in structure, mainly those that affect coverage and seniority/payment priority, are the primary source of this variance in credit quality. Clearly, the relative aggressiveness and complexity of different tobacco bonds has had a real effect on their economics.
  • Life Settlements Task Force Staff Report

    Life Settlements Task Force Staff Report

    Life Settlements Task Force Staff Report to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission July 22, 2010 This is a report by the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission has expressed no view regarding the analysis, findings, or conclusions contained herein. Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 II. Life Settlements ............................................................................................................ 3 A. What is a Life Settlement ........................................................................................ 3 B. Size of the Life Settlements Market ........................................................................ 4 III. Current Practices in the Life Settlements Market ......................................................... 6 A. Market Intermediaries ............................................................................................. 7 1. Brokers and Providers ....................................................................................... 7 2. Life Expectancy Underwriters .......................................................................... 8 3. Trading Platforms ........................................................................................... 10 4. Secondary Market Companies ........................................................................ 10 B. Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (STOLI) ......................................................