In the modern banking sector, guarantees are mainly used in over-the-counter transactions. However, collateral management has evolved rapidly over the past 15 to 20 years, with the increasing use of new technologies, competitive pressure in the institutional financial industry and increased counterparty risk due to the widespread use of derivatives, asset pool securitization and leverage. As a result, collateral management is now a very complex process, with interconnected functions involving multiple parties.  Since 2014, large pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, which generally hold a high level of high-quality securities, have been exploring ways such as converting security to earn fees.  The pros and cons of warranties include: These products, “security,” can be more or less everything, but generally metals, a wide range of soft raw materials and, of course, petroleum products. Commercial funds, which have more appetite for “risky” customers than commercial banks, also stimulate demand for collateral management services because they use collateral management in the activities they offer. Missing or stolen shares, bribes, fraud, defaults or food that rot in silos are some of the risks that lenders and collateral managers face. These motivations are linked, but the overwhelming driver of the use of guarantees is the desire to protect against credit risks.  Many banks do not act with counterparties that do not have collateral agreements. This is usually the case for hedge funds. While a CMA has many advantages, industry experts also warn that agreements will not do “good” bad business, and lenders still have to do their homework before entering into a transaction to minimize the risk of fraud, stolen shares or defaults.
Choosing the guarantee management company with best practices to combat the risk of fraud or corruption is crucial The dominant form of guarantees is cash and government bonds. According to ISDA, liquidity accounts for approximately 82% of the guarantees received and 83% of the guarantees provided in 2009, which is broadly in line with last year`s results. Government securities account for less than 10% of the guarantees received and 14% of the guarantees provided this year, which corresponds to the end of 2008.  Other types of warranties are less used.