Pay-in Shortfall, Market Cover and Exchange Close-Out
Meridian Broking is a clearing member at a national exchange. On Monday, its client Kanha Traders bought 80,000 shares of a mid-cap scrip at an average price of ₹310 on a delivery basis. The client paid only 20% of the value upfront; Meridian's dealing desk let the rest ride on a verbal assurance that Kanha would fund on T+1.
By 08:30 on Tuesday, Kanha has moved only 32,000 shares into the broker's pool account, and its bank account is ₹1.05 crore short. Pay-in at the clearing corporation closes at 11:00. Meridian covers 33,000 shares in the market at ₹318 by 09:45 but reaches pay-in short by 15,000 shares. The exchange closes out the shortfall at ₹352, the highest traded price of the day, and also raises a default charge of ₹1,000 plus GST on the member.
The risk head wants to know who absorbs each rupee, what can be recovered from Kanha Traders, and whether the client's account can simply be blocked and forgotten.
1. Quantify the loss on this settlement and state, component by component, who bears it - Meridian or Kanha Traders.
Read the worked answer
Component A - market cover of 33,000 shares. Bought at ₹318 against the client's contract price of ₹310, a loss of ₹8 × 33,000 = ₹2.64 lakh. This loss exists only because Kanha failed to deliver; Meridian faces the clearing corporation as principal, so the loss must be recovered from Kanha.
Component B - close-out of 15,000 shares. 15,000 × (₹352 − ₹310) = ₹6.30 lakh. The clearing corporation debits Meridian; the member-client agreement carries a default/close-out clause allowing recovery, with interest, from the defaulting client. Note this is not the kind of penalty SEBI bars a broker from passing on - that bar applies to penalties for short collection or non-collection of margins, not to close-out differences arising from the client's own delivery failure.
Component C - default charge of ₹1,000 plus GST. A charge triggered by the member's pay-in failure; recoverable as a cost of the client's default only if the agreement permits cost recovery, so read the clause before debiting.
Component D - the unfunded ₹1.05 crore principal. A debt of Kanha to Meridian. Debit it, charge interest for delayed payment, and, if unpaid after due notice, liquidate other collateral held for that client after giving notice.
Total quantifiable trading loss: ₹8.94 lakh plus charges and interest. The general principle: liability towards the clearing corporation is absolute and deadline-bound, while the allocation backwards to the client is contractual - so document the recovery trail as it happens, not later.
2. While arranging shares for pay-in, what specific action must Meridian avoid, and why?
Read the worked answer
Meridian must not use another client's securities or funds lying in its pool or client bank account to meet Kanha's obligation. Client assets are held in a fiduciary capacity, and a client's securities may be used only to settle that client's obligations. Using Client B's shares to plug Client A's delivery shortfall is an unauthorised transfer, invites a SEBI/exchange penalty, a compensation claim from Client B, and potential criminal exposure, and it is not cured by replacement later.
A related trap: the broker must not mark pay-in as complete, create a temporary transfer entry, or persuade the clearing corporation's staff to accept a delayed delivery on verbal assurance. False reporting of pay-in status is treated far more seriously than an honest close-out.
The legitimate options are limited to: buying in the broker's own proprietary account, accepting the close-out for the residual quantity, or sourcing shares from the defaulting client's other free holdings (with the client's proper authorisation). If the shortfall is inevitable, tell the clearing corporation early - the close-out price is set by the market, but concealment compounds the penalty.
3. Kanha's dealing pattern shows it funded 80% of a delivery purchase on a verbal promise. Design the three controls you would put in place to stop a recurrence.
Read the worked answer
1. Pre-trade funds and securities check on delivery orders. A delivery buy should clear only against 100% of the consideration (or full VaR + ELM margin as applicable), and a delivery sell only against an actual demat balance verified through the depository at order entry. If the broker genuinely wants to finance clients, it should do so under a proper Margin Trading Facility with a pledge, interest, and MTF limits - not under desk discretion.
2. Automated T+1 morning reconciliation with an escalation ladder. At 08:00 on T+1, the system should compare each client's securities and fund balances with the pay-in obligation and raise a graded alert: 08:00 shortfall list, 09:00 client calls with written confirmation, 09:30 mandatory market cover in the broker's own account, 10:00 close-out accepted. No verbal assurances.
3. Accountability and credit discipline. Any deviation from the pre-trade check should require dual authorisation, be logged with a reason code, and be reviewed monthly by the risk committee. Consequence management matters: a desk that can override the check with a phone call will keep doing it, and the loss shown by the numbers above lands on the broker, not the desk.