Global Custody and Agency Services (GCAS)

The purpose of this document is to disclose the levels of protection associated with the different levels of segregation that we provide in respect of securities that we hold directly for clients with Central Securities Depositories within the EEA (CSDs), including a description of the main legal implications of the respective levels of segregation offered and information on the insolvency law applicable. This disclosure is required under Article 38(6) of the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR).

 

Under CSDR, the CSDs of which we are a direct participant (see glossary¹) have their own disclosure obligations.

 

This document is not intended to constitute legal or other advice and should not be relied upon as such. Clients should seek their own legal advice if they require any guidance on the matters discussed in this document. 

In our own books and records, we record each client’s individual entitlement to securities that we hold for that client in a separate client account. We also open accounts with CSDs in our own (or in our nominee’s) name in which we hold clients’ securities. We currently make two types of accounts with CSDs available to clients: Individual Client Segregated Accounts (ISAs) and Omnibus Client Segregated Accounts (OSAs).

 

An ISA is used to hold the securities of a single client and therefore the client’s securities are held separately from the securities of other clients and our own proprietary securities.

 

An OSA is used to hold the securities of a number of clients on a collective basis. However, we do not hold our own proprietary securities in OSAs.

Based on our compliance with the foregoing, clients’ legal entitlement to the securities that we hold for them directly with CSDs would not be affected by our insolvency, whether those securities were held in ISAs or OSAs.

 

The distribution of the securities in practice on an insolvency would depend on a number of factors, the most relevant of which are discussed below.

 

Application of US insolvency law

 

We are a national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC). Accordingly, our insolvency would be administered by the FDIC as conservator or receiver in proceedings under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA).

 

Under the FDIA and applicable commercial law, securities that we hold on behalf of clients as described above under "Background" would not form part of our insolvency estate for distribution to creditors, provided that such securities remain the property of the clients². Rather, they would be deliverable to clients in accordance with each client’s proprietary interests in the securities.

 

As a result, it would not be necessary for clients to make a claim in our insolvency as a general unsecured creditor in respect of those securities. Securities that we held on behalf of clients would also not be subject to any bail-in process (see glossary), even if a bail-in process were to apply to our parent company if we were to become insolvent.

 

Accordingly, where we hold securities in custody for clients in Europe and those securities are considered the property of those clients rather than our own property, they should be protected following our insolvency or any subsequent resolution. This applies whether the securities are held in an OSA or an ISA.

 

Application of English insolvency law

 

Were we to become insolvent, insolvency proceedings relating to our London branch may also take place in England and be governed by English insolvency law.

 

Under English insolvency law, securities that we held on behalf of clients would not form part of our estate on insolvency for distribution to creditors, provided that they remained the property of the clients³. Rather, they would be deliverable to clients in accordance with each client’s proprietary interests in the securities. 

 

As a result, it would not be necessary for clients to make a claim in our insolvency as a general unsecured creditor in respect of those securities. Securities that we held on behalf of clients would also not be subject to any bail-in process (see glossary), which may be applied to us if we were to become subject to resolution proceedings (see glossary).

 

Accordingly, where we hold securities in custody for clients and those securities are considered the property of those clients rather than our own property, they should be protected on our insolvency or resolution. This applies whether the securities are held in an OSA or an ISA.

 

Nature of clients’ interests

 

Although our clients’ securities are registered in our name or the name of a nominee at the relevant CSD, we hold them on behalf of our clients, who are considered as a matter of law to have a property interest in those securities. This is in addition to any contractual right a client may have against us to have the securities delivered to them.

 

This applies both in the case of ISAs and OSAs. However, the nature of clients’ interests in ISAs and OSAs is different. In relation to an ISA, each client is beneficially entitled to all of the securities held in the ISA. In the case of an OSA, as the securities are held collectively in a single account, each client is normally considered to have a beneficial interest in all of the securities in the OSA proportionate to its holding of securities.

 

Our books and records constitute evidence of our clients’ beneficial interests in the securities. The ability to rely on such evidence would be particularly important on insolvency. In the case of either an ISA or an OSA, an insolvency practitioner may require a full reconciliation of the books and records in respect of all securities accounts prior to the release of any securities from those accounts.

 

We are subject to the client assets rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (CASS Rules), which contain strict and detailed requirements as to the maintenance of accurate books and records and the reconciliation of our records against those of the CSDs with which accounts are held. We are also subject to regular audits in respect of our compliance with those rules. As long as books and records are maintained in accordance with the CASS Rules, clients should receive the same level of protection in relation to both ISAs and OSAs. We are also required by legal rules in the United States, to the extent applicable to client accounts maintained by us, to maintain a quantity of securities credited to client accounts that are sufficient to cover the aggregate of all entitlements that we establish in favour of our clients.

If there were a shortfall between the number of securities that we are obliged to deliver to clients and the number of securities that we hold on their behalf in either an ISA or an OSA, this could result in fewer securities than clients are entitled to being returned to them on our insolvency.

 

How a shortfall may arise

 

A shortfall could arise for a number of reasons including as a result of administrative error, intraday movements or counterparty default following the exercise of rights of reuse.

 

We do not permit clients to make use of or borrow securities belonging to other clients for intra-day settlement purposes, even where the securities are held in in an OSA, in order to reduce the chances of a shortfall arising as a result of the relevant client failing to meet its obligation to reimburse the OSA for the securities used or borrowed.

 

Where we have been requested to settle a transaction for a client and that client has insufficient securities held with us to carry out that settlement, in the case of both an ISA and an OSA we only carry out the settlement once the client has delivered to us the securities needed to meet the settlement obligation.

 

However, as a result of other clients also beneficially owning a particular security held in an OSA, a client may be exposed to settlement risks arising from the transactions of other clients in that security. Although we maintain systemic controls in order to minimise the risk of it occurring, certain factors such as settlement cycles, settlement failures and the operation of third party systems may from time to time result in our using one client’s securities for the purposes of settling a transaction of another client. This increases the risk of settlement failure which in turn may incur additional buy-in costs or penalties and/or may delay settlement as we would be unable to settle where there are insufficient securities in the account.

 

Treatment of a shortfall

 

In the case of an ISA, the whole of any shortfall on that ISA would be attributable to the client for whom the account is held and would not be shared with other clients for whom we hold securities. Similarly, the client would not be exposed to a shortfall on an account held for another client or clients. 

 

In the case of an OSA, the shortfall would be shared among the clients with an interest in the securities held in the OSA (see further below). Therefore, a client may be exposed to a shortfall even where securities have been lost in circumstances which are completely unrelated to that client.

 

The risk of a shortfall arising is, however, mitigated as a result of our obligation under the CASS Rules in certain situations to set aside our own cash or securities to cover shortfalls identified during the process of reconciling our records with those of the CSDs with which securities are held.

 

If a shortfall arose and was not covered in accordance with the CASS Rules, clients may have a claim against us for any loss suffered. If we were to become insolvent prior to covering a shortfall, clients would rank as general unsecured creditors for any amounts owing to them in connection with such a claim. Clients would therefore be exposed to the risks of our insolvency, including the risk that they may not be able to recover all or part of any amounts claimed.

 

In these circumstances, clients could be exposed to the risk of loss on our insolvency. If securities were held in an ISA, the entire loss would be borne by the client for whom the relevant account was held. If securities were held in an OSA, the loss would be allocated between the clients with an interest in that account.

 

In order to calculate clients’ shares of any shortfall in respect of an OSA, each client’s entitlement to securities held within that account would need to be established as a matter of law and fact based on our books and records. Any shortfall in a particular security held in an OSA would then be allocated among all clients with an interest in that security in the account. It is likely that this allocation would be made rateably between clients with an interest in that security in the OSA, although arguments could be made that in certain circumstances a shortfall in a particular security in an OSA should be attributed to a particular client or clients. It may therefore be a time consuming process to confirm each client’s entitlement. This could give rise to delays in returning securities and initial uncertainty for a client as to its actual entitlement on an insolvency. Ascertaining clients’ entitlements could also give rise to the expense of litigation, which could be paid out of clients’ securities.

Security interest granted to third party

 

Security interests granted over clients’ securities could have a different impact in the case of ISAs and OSAs.

 

Where a client purported to grant a security interest over its interest in securities held in an OSA and the security interest was asserted against the CSD with which the account was held, there could be a delay in the return of securities to all clients holding securities in the relevant account, including those clients who had not granted a security interest, and a possible shortfall in the account. However, in practice, we would expect that the beneficiary of a security interest over a client’s securities would perfect its security by notifying us rather than the relevant CSD and would seek to enforce the security against us rather than against such CSD, with which it had no relationship. We would also expect CSDs to refuse to recognise a claim asserted by anyone other than ourselves as account holder.

 

Security interest granted to CSD

 

Where the CSD benefits from a security interest over securities held for a client, there could be a delay in the return of securities to a client (and a possible shortfall) in the event that we failed to satisfy our obligations to the CSD and the security interest was enforced. This applies whether the securities are held in an ISA or an OSA. However, in practice, we would expect that a CSD would first seek recourse to any securities held in our own proprietary accounts to satisfy our obligations and only then make use of securities in client accounts. We would also expect a CSD to enforce its security rateably across client accounts held with it.

 

Furthermore, the CASS Rules restrict the situations in which we may grant a security interest over securities held in a client account.

Article 38(6) of CSDR also requires us to disclose the costs associated with the different levels of segregation described in section 1 of this document.

 

As noted in section 1, Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) offers the choice between Individual Client Segregated Accounts (ISAs) and Omnibus Client Segregated Accounts (OSAs) at each CSD with which it holds assets directly for its clients.

 

ISAs and OSAs are fundamentally different to each other and as a result, the costs associated with each option will vary. 

 

Typically, an ISA will be more expensive than an OSA. The principal reason for this is that ISAs are operationally more expensive for BANA to open and maintain at the CSD. ISAs do not benefit from the operational efficiency afforded by an OSA: employing an ISA structure will require BANA to open and maintain multiple ISAs, which is likely to attract higher charges at the CSD (and other third parties) than would be incurred if BANA were simply able to use one account for a number of different clients.

 

Please note that it is not possible to provide detailed information about costs in this document. The particular pricing structures which apply to ISAs and OSAs will depend on various factors and will be calculated for clients on a case-by-case basis. We will be happy to discuss this further with you. Please contact your usual Bank of America representative.

bail-in refers, as applicable, to the process under the Banking Act 2009 applicable to failing UK branches of third country banks and investment firms, or the process under the FDIA applicable to our bank holding company, under which our (in the case of the Banking Act 2009) liabilities to clients may be modified, for example by being written down or converted into equity. Under the FDIA, this process is applicable to our bank holding company, but not to us.

 

Central Securities Depository or CSD is an entity which records legal entitlements to dematerialised securities and operates a system for the settlement of transactions in those securities.

 

Central Securities Depositories Regulation or CSDR refers to EU Regulation 909/2014 which sets out rules applicable to CSDs and their participants. 

 

direct participant means an entity that holds securities in an account with a CSD and is responsible for settling transactions in securities that take place within a CSD. A direct participant should be distinguished from an indirect participant, which is an entity, such as a global custodian, which appoints a direct participant to hold securities for it with a CSD.

 

EEA means the European Economic Area

 

resolution proceedings are, as applicable, proceedings for the resolution of failing insured depositary institutions under the FDIA or for the resolution of failing UK banks and investment firms under the Banking Act 2009.

[1] At the end of this document is a glossary explaining some of the technical terms used in the document.

[2] When a client has sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of their legal entitlement to securities that we hold for them (for example, under a right to use or title transfer collateral arrangement), the securities will no longer be the property of the client.

[3] When a client has sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of their legal entitlement to securities that we hold for them (for example, under a right to use or title transfer collateral arrangement), the securities will no longer be the property of the client.

DISCLAIMER Please note that this disclosure is Bank of America’s own interpretation of the matters considered, does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation, and accordingly must not be relied upon by you or any third party as such. Bank of America makes no representation or warranty express or implied, with respect to the fairness, correctness, accuracy, reasonableness, or completeness of the information contained herein. In addition, Bank of America has no obligation to update, modify or amend any information contained herein or to otherwise notify you in the event that any matter stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate. Bank of America is not acting and does not purport to act in any way as an advisor or in a fiduciary capacity in respect of the foregoing. This information is confidential and must not be circulated without Bank of America’s prior written consent.

 

“Bank of America” and “BofA Securities” are the marketing names used by the Global Banking and Global Markets divisions of Bank of America Corporation. Lending, other commercial banking activities, and trading in certain financial instruments are performed globally by banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America N.A., Member FDIC. Trading in securities and financial instruments, and strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities, are performed globally by investment banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (“Investment Banking Affiliates”), including, in the United States, BofA Securities Inc. and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., both of which are registered broker-dealers and Members of SIPC, and, in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. BofA Securities Inc. and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. are registered as futures commission merchants with the CFTC and are members of the NFA.

 

Investment products offered by Investment Banking Affiliates: Are Not FDIC Insured * May Lose Value * Are Not Bank Guaranteed.