Suspend securities lending: Watson Wyatt

Asset consultant Watson Wyatt has recommended that its global clients suspend their securities lending programmes if they have any doubt about their arrangements with lending agents.

In a note to clients this week, the firm said that the risk reward trade off for securities lending had changed, and in some instances, may not even be worthwhile anymore.

Watson Wyatt cited events such as the demise of Lehman Brothers, government restrictions on short selling, and the underperformance of money-market funds in particular for putting pressure on the lending industry.

To identify the potential risks a lending agent might pose, the firm told its clients to research collateral types and amounts, reinvestment guidelines (in the event that cash collateral was taken), counterparty restrictions and any collateral indemnification provisions provided by the lending agent.

If any of these were perceived to carry too much risk, Watson Wyatt suggested that clients should suspend their securities lending programmes immediately, although for some funds with principal losses in their cash collateral or mark-to-market losses related to liquidity, this might incur an exiting cost, unless the lending agent had made a compensatory concession.

Sponsored Content

Some agents may restrict a wholesale withdrawal from their programs, Watson Wyatt warned.

For some funds, a gradual withdrawal might be more appropriate, but in this event Watson Wyatt recommended funds review their lending guidelines. The firm said it would be prudent to increase collateral requirements, review the list of borrowers, review the indemnification structure, and change the cash collateral reinvestment guidelines.

Funds with non-cash collateralised lending should be able to suspend lending immediately, Watson Wyatt said.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

European distressed debt: investors divided by volatility

Last month conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com hosted a thinktank with a group of influential Australian investors to discuss the opportunities in European distressed debt. Participants included the Australian Government’s $80 billion sovereign wealth Future Fund, the $68 billion QIC, and leading asset consultants, with guest speaker sir David Cooksey, former board member of the Bank of England, chairman

Governance, Gonski style

Since becoming chair of the $80-billion Future Fund in March, David Gonski has set an agenda to act like a public company chair. An element of that vision is to very clearly delegate to management. “The general manager has been elevated to a managing director and the six-monthly announcements will be his,” he says. Another

Risk parity manages risk regret

The risk parity approach to portfolio construction might not deliver results in a “bull stockmarket,” but remained a “robust and rigorous” methodology which also “managed risk regret over time.” These are the views of Wai Lee, chief investment officer of quantitive investment at New York-based fund manager Neuberger Berman, who was recently named winner of

African countries come to the sovereign wealth fund party

Many of the countries with the largest oil reserves also boast the largest sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). And yet African producers, like newcomer Ghana, Angola, and Nigeria which has been pumping oil since the 1950s, haven’t saved much of their oil revenue. Now, in an effort to replicate the long-term growth of funds like Norway’s

Regulatory risk in Europe a factor for infrastructure investment

The head of infrastructure at Australia’s $80 billion Future Fund has cited regulatory risk in Europe and the United Kingdom as reasons to be wary about infrastructure investment in the region. Raphael Arndt, the Future Fund’s head of infrastructure and timberlands, told a Sydney conference this week that he was particularly concerned with the situation

Europe’s credit rating crunch

It has been a bad month for credit-rating agency executives who thought they were winning the legal and regulatory arguments about how they conduct their business. In Australia, the Federal Court ruled on November 5 in favour of 12 local councils in New South Wales which claimed that Standard and Poor’s had misled them into

Previous