Strong management of collateral, both receivable and payable, is emerging as an area requiring significant investment by financial institutions and asset managers in IT infrastructures and business processes. A bank needs to make collateral calls daily, based upon the P&L of the previous day, and likewise receives collateral calls from its counterparties. Just like cash, a bank needs to make sure that it does not run out of collateral to post when a call is received. Interestingly, based upon the agreements between banks and their mutual understanding, only certain types of instruments often qualify as valid collateral - and in such cases even cash is not acceptable if the right type of bond or other agreed security is not available to post. The operational challenges of managing collateral increase manifold due to 'rehypothecation', ie when collateral received from one counterparty gets posted out as collateral where it is due. In such cases, the bank should have the mechanisms to receive the right assets back in a timely way in case rehypothecated assets are to be returned. The systems should be able to deal with delays, failures without impacting the ability of the bank to post collateral as needed. All of this requires major investments in IT and processes.
Statement I is not true as a bank is bound to post collateral to third parties when needed regardless of the failure of its counterparties to post collateral to it when owed. In the markets, failures by counterparties can and do happen, and a collateral management system needs to account for and keep a buffer for the fact that some collateral when due will not be received.
Statement II is not true as rehypothecation by counterparties of collateral posted increases the chances of the collateral not being received in time. The system should consider the need for liquidity to generate assets that can be posted as collateral when others have failed to return the collateral in a timely way.
Statement III is not correct as cash may not be acceptable to counterparties as collateral. From a practical point of view, they may not have the infrastructure to receive and account for cash as collateral. A Swiss bank, for example, may have an 'account' to receive US t-bills as collateral but may not even have a US dollar account to receive cash. Even if it did, the volumes of transactions going back and forth may make tracking and reconciliations impossible. Thus a bank should always make sure that it has the right type of collateral available to post.
Statement IV is incorrect as well, as treasury issued instruments are also subject to haircuts. Their value also fluctuates in response to changes in yields, and therefore they are subject to haircuts as well.
Thus none of the statements are correct and Choice 'd' is the correct answer.
