Own funds
Clarify permanent minimum capital, fixed-overhead calculations, projected overheads for new applicants, and whether reserves are available for operational losses.
For a CASP, Article 67 is not a binary “buy insurance or hold capital” decision. The useful comparison is whether the firm can evidence a credible capital buffer, risk transfer, comparable guarantee, or mixed path for its actual services and operating model.
Informational only. Not legal, regulatory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
Article 67 allows prudential safeguards to be maintained through own funds, a qualifying insurance policy, a comparable guarantee, or a combination. CASPs should treat the choice as an evidence and operating-risk question, not as a shortcut around supervisory or market review.
The practical task is to explain which risks remain on the balance sheet, which risks may be transferred or guaranteed, and what documentation supports that position.
Clarify permanent minimum capital, fixed-overhead calculations, projected overheads for new applicants, and whether reserves are available for operational losses.
Map policy term, cancellation notice, Union-territory coverage, public-disclosure duties, risk categories, exclusions, limits, retentions, and claims handling.
Identify the guarantor, legal enforceability, scope, duration, cancellation mechanics, and how the guarantee responds to Article 67 risk areas.
Show how own funds, insurance, and guarantees work together rather than double-counting the same protection or leaving a gap between them.
Organize service scope, custody exposure, control evidence, incident history, and application narrative before a market conversation.
Connect custody duties, asset-return obligations, client-position records, and loss-risk controls to the Article 67 risk-transfer discussion.