Client-Money Shortfall During a Bank Migration
During a bank migration, a mid-sized brokerage accidentally routes £1.2 million of client money into its own operating account on Friday. The money is intended for settlement of client trades on Monday. On Monday morning, the daily reconciliation shows a client-money shortfall of £85,000 because two receipts were posted to the wrong ledger. The COO says the shortfall will probably clear when a £120,000 client cheque arrives Tuesday and suggests waiting until then to avoid a regulatory report and client alarm. The finance manager notes that the firm's policy requires same-day notification of any material shortfall and use of a segregated client account. A senior trader says the firm can temporarily use £100,000 of its own cash to cover the gap but wants it repaid from client funds after settlement. The compliance officer is on leave and the CEO is travelling.
1. Assess the £85,000 shortfall and the £1.2 million misrouting. What immediate actions are required?
Read the worked answer
This is a client-money breach and a reconciliation failure, not a timing nuisance. The firm should immediately transfer the £1.2 million from the operating account back to the segregated client account, identify which clients' funds are affected, and restore the £85,000 shortfall from the firm's own resources. It should not wait for Tuesday's cheque, because client money must not be used to fund a shortfall or be commingled with firm money. The finance manager's policy point is correct: same-day escalation and notification are required for a material shortfall. The compliance officer's absence and the CEO's travel do not suspend the obligation; the firm should activate its delegated escalation process, involve a senior manager, preserve the reconciliation records, and notify the regulator if the firm's policy or applicable rules require it. The reasoning is that client-money protection depends on prompt segregation and restoration, not on an expectation that later receipts will cure the breach.
2. Evaluate the COO's proposal to wait and the trader's proposal to use £100,000 of firm cash then repay from client funds.
Read the worked answer
The COO's proposal is unacceptable. Waiting until Tuesday increases the period of shortfall, risks client settlement failures, and creates a misleading appearance that the reconciliation is under control. The trader's proposal is partly right and partly wrong: using £100,000 of the firm's own cash to cover the gap immediately is appropriate, but repaying it from client funds after settlement is not automatically appropriate. The firm may recover its own money only through proper accounting and only to the extent it has a legitimate claim; it cannot treat client money as a convenient reimbursement pool. The cover payment should be documented as a firm proprietary transfer, the client account should be made whole, and the ledgers should be corrected. The reasoning is that the source of the cover matters: firm cash protects clients, while repayment from client funds can create a new misappropriation or allocation problem.
3. What should the firm communicate to clients and the regulator, and what root-cause fixes are needed?
Read the worked answer
The firm should make any required regulatory notification promptly and factually, including the amount, duration, cause, remediation, and affected accounts. Client communication should be accurate and limited to what clients need to know; affected clients should be told if their funds were temporarily short or if settlement was delayed. The firm should not minimize a material breach. Root-cause fixes should include mapping the bank-migration accounts, dual approval for ledger changes, independent reconciliation, segregation checks before settlement, contingency procedures for compliance absence, and training for finance and operations staff. The firm should also test whether the £85,000 error could recur and whether the £1.2 million misrouting was a one-off or a control design flaw. The reasoning is that remediation must restore client money first and then fix the process that allowed the breach.