What is LDV ?

Who benefits from LDV?

LDV benefits all participants in the securities finance industry.  Lenders are better able to exercise their corporate governance responsibilities and, since lenders recall fewer loans, overall securities lending volume and revenue increase.  Loan, borrow, and collateral portfolios are more stable, allowing agents and brokers to more effectively manage investment, counterparty, and operational risks.  Corporate issuers receive more proxy votes from long-term investors, allowing them to reach quorum more quickly and at lower cost, and counterbalance votes of short-term activists.  Higher loan volumes also improve financial market liquidity and price discovery.

 

What is Lender-Directed Voting, or LDV?

LDV is a new process that matches securities lenders' loaned shares to broker securities that would otherwise go unvoted, enabling lenders to direct proxies without recalling loans.  It substantially improves existing market practices, which require lenders to recall loan in order to vote proxies.  Recalls are inefficient in that they reduce overall lending and borrowing revenue, and create instability in loan, borrow, and collateral portfolios. 

Why haven't lenders voted on loaned shares in the past?

Historically, institutional securities lenders had to forgo voting rights on loaned shares because there was no mechanism to vote without recalls.  Recent technology and transparency improvements in securities finance markets, however, enable loaned shares to be matched with broker shares that would otherwise go unvoted.  In particular, the Agent Lender Disclosure Initiative made apparent the direct counterparty relationship between lenders and broker-borrowers and provided brokers with detailed loan data necessary to include lenders in their proxy allocation routines.

Are there enough unvoted shares to cover lender voting interest?

Approximately 60 billion U.S. equities go unvoted each year[1], while roughly 15 billion shares are on loan[2], suggesting that sufficient votes could be available to meet lender vote demand.  However, it is unlikely that lender voting interest will be fully covered for all issues, such as those with particularly contentious proxy events or that are hard-to-borrow in securities lending markets. 


[1] www.broadridge.com/investor–communications /us/Broadridge_Proxy_Stats_2010.pdf
[2] Data from RMA securities lending composite, assuming $20 average stock price

Does the broker have the lender’s shares on the proxy record date?

1.  U.S. Federal Reserve Regulation T (“Reg T”) defines the permitted purposes for the extension of credit in the borrowing and lending of securities. In general, all of these purposes involve settling trades through re-delivery of the borrowed securities. Most often, the broker’s need to borrow has arisen after failing to receive securities required for an impending trade settlement, either as the result of an operational breakdown or after a short sale.

2.  Given the broker-borrower’s mandatory compliance with Reg T, it can be argued that borrowed shares, which are re-delivered in the settlement of a trade, are not available on the broker’s books (as a technical matter, the position would be held at DTCC) in order to earn voting rights on the proxy record date. However, this argument would only be true per se if the settlement took place on the proxy record date, because an analysis of the ongoing process reveals that the proxy votes, not just the entitled shares, are properly treated as fully fungible on the broker-borrower’s books.

3.  Reg T does not require that the borrowed shares be returned to the original lender when a subsequent receipt of securities is used to offset the original failure-to-receive. At that point, the borrower can certainly return the securities to the original lender. Yet, an active borrower can also compliantly decide to close a loan of the same securities with a different institutional lender whose terms may have become less attractive or from another broker-dealer lender who may be viewed as more likely to recall shares at an inconvenient time in the future, especially if the shares were borrowed for an ongoing short position. Still another reason may exist to hold the securities if the broker considers the return on its cash collateral, received through a rebate from the lender, to be very attractive compared with other investment options. In all those cases, as well as for actively traded issues where there may be a high risk of ongoing settlement failures, the broker can simply keep the newly-received shares in its inventory, balanced against its obligation to the lender.

4. As a result of efficient management of its settlement obligations, a broker – perhaps all brokers – may well have borrowed positions on their books on proxy record dates. The brokers would have gained the right to assign proxies or even to vote at the next corporate meeting as a direct result of the original loans from institutional lenders. In effect, the proxies are fungible on the brokers’ books, along with the borrowed shares themselves subject, of course, to an equitable assignment of proxy rights in compliance with stock exchange rules. Yet, brokers are not expressly permitted to assign proxies to their institutional lenders. At this point, the Lender Directed Voting (“LDV”) argument gains relevance and substance.

5. As noted, in addition to holding the shares cum voting rights, the broker also retains an obligation to its original lender. Indeed, one could argue that an institutional lender's ownership rights are stronger than those of other “beneficial owners” to whom the broker owes shares in the same securities. That is partly due to the distinction that can be drawn between the institutional lenders, who do not receive proxy assignments, and the broker’s own margin customers and hedge fund clients, who do receive proxy assignments. The distinction resides in the timeline of their property rights: the former owned the shares fully prior to lending them to the broker, while the latter required broker-financing in order to acquire their positions. Although we have seen that the institution’s shares may now be on the broker’s books, it is very likely that the financing customers’ shares are out on loan, i.e., hypothecated as collateral to source the broker’s own funding needs. And, in such cases, those positions are truly not in the brokers’ DTC account, although the brokers may well be assigning proxy rights to their accountholders. One can ably argue that those proxies would more equitably be assigned to the institutional lenders.

How can lenders instruct broker shares?

Brokers administer proxy allocation routines to distribute proxies to their customers.  Since broker shares are held in fungible bulk and lenders have beneficial ownership to loaned shares, brokers can include lenders in their allocation routines.  After brokers allocate proxies to lenders, standard proxy processes are followed to garner and submit voting instructions and submit them to corporate issuers.  For example, proxies are assigned to Broadridge accounts designated for the lenders, then are instructed by lenders or ISS on the lenders' behalf.

Could lenders also instruct custodians' unvoted shares?

Regulatory and operational considerations may pose challenges to matching custodians' unvoted shares with lenders’ loan positions.  In particular, custodian shares are not held in fungible bulk, as are broker shares, which presents difficulties when considering custodial allocation of proxies across lender accounts. Furthermore, custodians are not counterparties on loans, so the lenders are not beneficial owners to any of the custodians’ unvoted shares.

Does LDV contribute to “over-reporting,” since lenders’ shares were delivered to new buyers who now have the associated voting rights?

Existing proxy reconciliation processes are sufficient to address any potential "over-reporting" issues.  For example, brokers already use post-reconciliation processes to mitigate the risk of over-reporting that may arise from assigning proxies to margin customers whose shares may have been loaned or rehypothecated.

How do brokers decide which lender(s) are assigned proxies?

Beneficial owners and regulators have expressed concerns about voting opportunities being directed to preferred lenders or leveraged for beneficial loan terms.  In the same way that agent lending queues are designed so that lenders get equitable access to borrower demand, brokers need pre-defined and algorithmic “proxy queues” to ensure equitable assignment of voting opportunities.  Furthermore, on-going auditing and validation of proxy assignments may be needed to ensure against development of a “market for votes.” 

What if proxies are not available from a lender's borrower, but are from another broker?

Reallocation of the loans to brokers with available proxies would increase overall lender voting opportunities.  However, numerous other loan factors would need to be taken into account, such as counterparty risk assessments and credit limits, loan prices, and collateral types and quantity.  Considering these factors, loan reallocations may not be in the overall best interest of lenders and borrowers, and will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

How can lenders know, before record date, how many proxies they will be assigned?

To the extent that lenders receive proxies through LDV, they will not have to recall loans to regain voting rights.  However, broker holdings change daily and varying numbers of investors vote, so the number of proxies that can be assigned to lenders cannot be known with certainty until just before the meeting date, which is typically two months after lenders must make record date recall decisions.   The number of available proxies must therefore be forecasted, taking into account factors such as each broker's customer base, the scarcity of shares in the securities lending market, and the expected materiality of proxy ballot items.

Corporate Governance Blog

Monday, May 13, 2019

Distributed Ledger Technologies in Securities Finance

As Revolutionary as Central Securities Depositories?


Author: Ed Blount

 

The most powerful Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) for securities finance will be cloud-based data lakes in which blockchains and shared ledgers form the currents and eddies. Smart contracts will power the mills that channel the data flows to provide services to their participants. In their potential, DLTs can reengineer current securities processes in the same way that central securities depositories (CSD) did in the 1970s … so long as the looming limitations can be overcome.

 

Not only did CSDs provide book-entry trade settlement, but they also made large-scale hedging possible. Short positions, involved in most hedges, became practical as CSDs allowed the covering securities to be borrowed and loaned without the need to move physical certificates.

 

 

More Efficient Reconcilement

 

In this discussion, we'll use securities lending and finance as our prospective use cases. Both can be considered in the same process, as mirror images of each other.

 

The greatest exposure to risk and expense in securities finance is the handling of income and corporate actions. During the loan’s lifecycle, income processed by the CSD could be distributed and then redistributed electronically without the use of paper due bills or clipped coupons. Before CSDs, shareholder votes could not be collected without shipping paper ballots to a physical ballot box. DLTs will have to exceed this level of value-added in order to justify their hype, at this stage of development. As explained below, that may well be possible.

 

In the operations layer supporting the new asset flows, the inevitable reconciliation of trading breaks became infinitely easier by digitizing such documents as DK’d delivery orders, NSF debits, mismatched tickets and all their related research files.

 

 

Communications Enabled by DLT

 

In this new DLT world, the most successful use cases have been those which organize existing supply chain data in order to expedite the flow of information, i.e., communications, among transactors. In the 1980s, a decade after CSDs appeared, advancing communications networks were also the chief catalyst for revolutionary developments.

 

By the turn of the century, the internet had transformed the market system in ways not even imagined when CSDs were introduced, while creating a feedback loop that fostered improvements in database technologies needed to support the innovations. DLT will also change and be changed through its adoption by the financial markets.

 

 

Going Forward with Loyalty Programs

 

DLT will make new transactions possible by making ratios derived from reconciled records accessible to transactors on a securely-encrypted, as-needed basis. For example, lenders and financial intermediaries will be able to agree on the appointment of preferred borrowers, such as hedge funds already approved for investment by lender-customers. Those borrowers will then have preferential pricing and access to the most desirable securities in the lender's portfolio. That form of preferential financing can avoid the search costs and delays that inflate the capital charges and other expenses in securities financing services. An advanced form of edge computing may help make this process overcome the latency challenges, as participants evaluate the practicality of this new distribution model.

 

By using shared ledgers to update the sensor feeds and risk systems that monitor the current status of borrowers, agent banks and prime brokers will be able to fast-track loaned securities through their privately-governed blockchains. Preferred hedge funds will exploit their status so as to confidently borrow the securities needed to execute their short-term trades, often for the same customer-lenders.

 

Perhaps it will be called a loyalty program for hedge funds. Or perhaps for institutional lenders. Or perhaps for both. 

 

 

Capital Savings for Intermediaries

 

Since smart contracts will direct the borrowed securities straight from the lender's custodian to the hedge fund’s account with the prime broker on advice of the lending agent, without hitting either the bank's or the broker's balance sheet, the capital savings for the intermediaries should more than justify the necessary DLT development and testing costs.

 

  • Collateral movements to secure the loans can also avoid temporary posting to the intermediaries' balance sheets, thereby saving even more capital charges.
  • Agent banks will be able to add to their capital savings by minimizing the need to indemnify against default the loans made by customers to their preferred hedge fund borrowers, while relegating the rule on single-counterparty-credit limits to a regulatory afterthought.

 

 

More Efficient Reconcilement, better than CSDs

 

As useful as DLTs will be for loan distribution, their contribution will be even greater for operational risk management. That is because the greatest risk in a securities financing transaction resides in the processing of income payments and other corporate entitlements. Even within CSDs, entitlements have to follow a labyrinthine trail of lenders, on-lenders and borrower-lenders, in order to find their way back to the true beneficial owner. With the "golden record" provided by the blockchain, the shared ledger will enable posting directly from the book recipient to the true beneficial owner, again without the capital-hungry delays on the balance sheets of intermediaries.  

 

 

The Path Forward

 

These and other new transactions will be enabled by smart contracts that have access to a continuously-updated shared ledger. Of course at this point, no one will claim that's going to be an easy task. Algorithms will require real-time ratios in order to execute loans by matching relationship-stacks to transaction-stacks, among other methods.  Of course, it will take

 

  • bulletproof encryption routines to calm the nerves of account officers and risk managers; and,
  • steady IT managers with dependable systems to produce the real-time ratios needed to maintain the currency of the shared ledgers.

 

If not considered carefully, that dependency on the currency and accuracy of the financial ratios used by the smart contracts to guide preferential / loyalty loans may soon become the Achilles' heel for DLT.

 

 

Designing Data Lakes to Overcome Looming DLT Limitations

 

The inputs to shared ledgers will come from firewalled database systems at customers, intermediaries and consultants. More often than not, the output formats will differ among DLT participants. That variety will create input data entry problems and synchronization challenges for the DLT blockchain and ledger.

 

Opinions vary on how best to manage big data, but there is consensus that a good data lake architecture will enable the transformation of many petabytes of disparate information into well-structured data formats in a warehouse. Once the inputs are capable of updating and reconciling the shared ledger, then smart contracts can execute loans, manage income, and process corporate actions for a blockchained community of DLT participants. The transformation would be at least as revolutionary as the introduction of central securities depositories.

 

It is the data lake that will provide the platform for DLT to enable the expected next-gen efficiencies, but synchronization issues will always remain as challenges even after the transformation issues are resolved.  

 

 

Timing and Reliability Issues

 

Today, IT managers in time-sensitive analytic businesses can relate to data dependencies as well as any IT manager whose firm participates in an externally shared ledger. Analytic robots, especially those which have not received a full complement of inputs from external data sources in time to run their value-added algorithms, must decide whether to submit interim results to the shared ledger or continue to delay submission. That is the very definition of "mission-critical" for those firms.

 

Ultimately, that decision to go/no-go will depend on the sensitivity of their algorithms to the missing data, but every delay will create problems for other participants who are reliant on thoroughly-vetted analytics. Hence, the concern of risk managers will go to the reliability of the ratios to be used to guide loans to preferred borrowers.

 

To the extent that the firewalled internal systems cannot respond quickly enough to satisfy loan demands from the smart contracts, and update the shared ledger even before the data lake's new input transformations, customers and management alike will be disappointed in the lending system's performance. Hence the concern of account officers will center on failure to meet their revenue targets.

 

Like all new technologies, DLT will only meet its potential if creativity is employed in program design and development, particularly in dealing with format and synchronization challenges. 

Print

Corporate Outreach Milestones

MILESTONES FOR LENDER DIRECTED VOTING

May 8, 2014: Council of Institutional Investors; - CII Elects New Board, Names Jay Chaudhuri Board Chair. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/north-carolina-treasurer-may-cede-pension-control-5-questions.html )

February 2014:  Swiss Minder Initiative implies the value of LDV. http://www.ipe.com/switzerlands-minder-initiative-will-cripple-securities-lending-experts-warn/10000947.article.

January 2014FL SBA begins their SecLending Auction Program with eSecLending.

November 27, 2013 – CSFME staff call with Glass Lewis Chief Operating Officer. He gave his commitment for cooperation and support for LDV, and most importantly, he suggested that perhaps we should discuss with a Broadridge/State Street/Citi the scenario that permits Citi to forward an “Omnibus Ballot” of proxies to State Street, which State Street would then take and assign the proxies to their pension lenders/LDV participants, which would then be incorporated into a single ballot and sent to Broadridge. This eliminates the secondary ballot issue. While this description is oversimplified, Glass Lewis was fairly certain the parties involved could operationally create such a combined ballot. Responding to the question on cost, the Glass Lewis executive stated that the cost depends on the number of voting policies a fund has. Most funds have one policy; therefore, depending on the client, the cost would be $.75 – $2.00 per ballot.

October 21, 2013 – CSFME staff call with ISS Chief Operations Officer. He committed his cooperation and support to advance LDV’s implementation into the markets. He responded to the question about cost: “It depends on the client and the services they use. $6-7 per ballot on average.”

June 25-28, 2013 – CSFME staff attended ICGN Annual Conference in NY, NY. Spoke with executives of CalSTRS; ICGN Chair and Blackrock about LDV.  We received favorable comments and encouragement from each.

June 6, 2013: CSFME meets with Chief Investment Officer for NYC Pension Funds. While very much in favor of the LDV concept, the comments that the NYC Pension Fund Boards are for the most part followers in new initiatives and would prefer a roll-out by other funds first.

April 5, 2013: ‘SEC gives CSFME limited approval for LDV going forward’ providing brokers assign proxies only from their proprietary shares.

March 26, 2013 – CSFME and its legal team presented the case for LDV to SEC Commissioner Dan Gallagher. Present by phone and speaking on behalf of LDV were representatives of FL SBA who spoke about the difficulty of timely recall of shares on loan following release of record date and issues on agenda; and a representative from CalSTRS who spoke about their recall policy affecting income.

March 13, 2013 – CSFME meet staff of Senator Rob Portman and Congressman Steve Stivers of Ohio. These meetings were for the purpose of lining up political support, should the SEC resist the LDV concept. We also met and spoke with CII Deputy Director Amy Borrus for one hour and 15 minutes for a scheduled 30 minute meeting.  She expressed great interest in the value of LDV to long-term beneficial owners.

January 17, 2013 – CSFME conference call with CoPERA Director of Investments.  Among CoPERA’s concerns were: (1) How are agents/brokers notified re: LDV? (2) Who moves or approaches first lender to agent or agent to lender? CSFME responds  that a side letter is needed between lender, agent and broker.

November 8, 2012 – CSFME conference call with Council of Institutional Investors (CII) detailing LDV. Some in attendance were opposed to securities lending because of their desire to vote 100% of recall. This position would be irrelevant giving CalSTRS’ change to policy on proxy recall.

October 24, 2012, 2PM – CSFME presents LDV to Broadridge Institutional Investor Group. At this meeting, a representative of CalSTRS states: “We would view brokers willing to provide proxies more favorably than those who would not.” We were also informed by CalSTRS that they were looking to change their 100% recall policy. A representative of SWIB led a discussion on International Voting Issues, and apparently was chairing 3 meetings to determine the following: 1. who is voting internationally? 2. What are the issues in the international markets? 3. How do we increase and improve international processes?

October 24, 2012, 11AM – EWB/KT conference call with ICGN.  Executives stated that the argument for LDV may not be as strong in a non-record date market, and asked what would be the cost for LDV.  They further stated that they would like to see the U.S. go with LDV first and would need more information and operational detail.

October 13, 2012 email note from Elizabeth Danese Mozely to Broadridge’s Institutional Investor Working Group: “TerriJo Saarela, State of Wisconsin Investment Board, will provide commentary on their fund’s interest in international voting and an update on her participation in the Council of Institutional Investors’ working group on international voting.  Our discussion will include the differences in process for voting abroad, share blocking, attendance at the meeting via proxy or Power of Attorney (POA), best practices available through the various laws and regulations, etc.”

September 18, 2012: CSFME contacts Blackrock/ICGN Chair for a brief on LDV.

August 13, 2012 – CSFME conference call with OTPP.  Discussion of LDV was not timely in that their SecLending Program stopped lending securities through agents in mid-2006. State Street is their custodian and they were using a tri-party repo through Chase to Lehman, until the Lehman collapse. All the assets sat at Chase. It was not clear who had voting rights. At the time of this discussion in August 2012, OTPP was thinking formulating an SLA because they do not have the capacity to lend securities on their own. We have had no discussion with them since.

August 2, 2012 – CSFME contacts Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) regarding LDV.

March 19, 2012 – CSFME conference call with executive in charge of securities lending for Franklin Templeton

February 22, 2012ICGN sends LDV letter of support to the SEC, signed by Chairman of the ICGN Board of Governors.

September 30, 2011CalSTRS sends LDV letter of support to the SEC, signed by Director of Corporate Governance Anne Sheehan.

July 18, 2011Florida SBA sends LDV letter of support to the SEC, signed by Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer.

November 2011 – CSFME introduces Council of Institutional Investors editor to LDV.

July 5, 2011 – CSFME sends a Comment Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding LDV.

October 2010 – CSFME releases report: Borrowed Proxy Abuse: Real or Not? This report and the SEC’s Securities Lending and Short Selling Roundtable prompted the question from beneficial owners and regulators regarding the need to recall shares on loan to vote proxies, why can’t lenders receive proxies for shares on loan when we get the dividends? From this question, the idea for Lender Directed Voting was born.

January 2010 – SEC issues rules that brokers no longer have the discretion to vote their customers’ shares held in companies without receiving voting instructions from those customers about how to vote them in an election of directors. http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/votingrules2010.htm. The rule, periodically, contributed to the difficulty of corporate meetings attaining a quorum.

Fall 2009/2010 – Four public pension funds join CSFME in Empty Voting studies/LDV initiative; FL SBA, CalSTRS, SWIB and CoPERA.

September 29-30, 2009 - SEC Announces Panelists for Securities Lending and Short Sale Roundtable; http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-207.htm