Back-Office in Name Only: Why Your Custody Relationship Is a Capital Decision

I’ve seen an expensive mistake that never appears on a risk register. It’s not a loss event. It’s not a failed audit. It’s revenue that simply doesn’t exist because nobody with the authority to ask for it ever did.

Custody services are the most persistent example of this in institutional finance. The industry narrative has always been comfortable: a custodian holds your assets, settles your trades, and sends you a report at month-end. Passive. Reliable. Boring. The kind of thing you hand to someone competent and sensible and then stop thinking about.

That narrative is wrong. Not partially wrong, structurally wrong. And the cost of believing it is not abstract. It shows up in yield you didn’t earn, capital you didn’t deploy efficiently, and withholding tax you paid and never reclaimed. The custodian wasn’t hiding these opportunities. Most of the time, nobody was asking.

—

The Founder I Got Wrong

Eighteen months ago, I wrote a post that touched on this. It landed reasonably well, which meant people agreed with the surface observation: founders and senior executives often don’t know what revenue they’re leaving inside their custody relationships. Securities lending sitting dormant. Collateral fragmented across trading desks. Tax reclaim processes still manual, still slow, still leaking.

I framed it as a discovery problem. Executives weren’t aware. Once they knew, they would act.

I was half right. Half right in a way that cost the argument its real point.

Last month, I went back to that same founder. Eighteen months on. They had, in fact, renegotiated the custody relationship. Securities lending was activated. Collateral had been consolidated. The withholding tax reclaim process, cross-border dividends, treaty benefits, the entire machinery, was finally automated. Material improvement across all three. I asked what had actually changed internally to make it happen.

He said: “We had to stop treating it as the CFO’s problem.”

I sat with that for a moment. Because what he meant was not that the CFO had been failing. He meant the relationship had been categorised as operational, handed down the chain to people with competence but without authority, and quietly left there. Nobody at principal level was asking the economics question. So nobody answered it. The custodian wasn’t withholding anything. The client had simply decided, implicitly, without ever actually deciding, that this was a back-office matter.

I got it wrong in 2024 because I diagnosed the symptom instead of the condition. Awareness was never the constraint. Ownership was.

—

What Custody Services Actually Are

Let me be precise about what is sitting inside these relationships, because the vocabulary matters.

**Securities lending** is the most straightforward and the most underused. When you hold equity positions you’re not actively trading, a custodian can lend those securities to short sellers and other market participants in exchange for collateral and a fee. The asset remains economically yours. The yield is incremental. For funds with meaningful long positions, this is not a rounding error, it’s a deliberate revenue line. Treated as operational, it goes unreviewed. Treated as a capital decision, it gets optimised.

**Collateral management** is where the complexity compounds. Firms running multiple trading desks, derivative positions, and financing arrangements are often posting collateral inefficiently, either concentrating high-quality assets where lower-quality ones would satisfy requirements, or failing to recycle collateral across the enterprise in any coherent way. A custodian with tri-party collateral management capability can transform this. But only if someone at the table has both the authority to restructure the arrangement and the mandate to ask whether the current setup is optimal. Most of the time, that person doesn’t exist in the conversation.

**Tax reclamation on cross-border dividends** is the least glamorous and possibly the most consistently mismanaged. When a fund receives dividends from foreign equities, withholding tax is typically deducted at source. Many jurisdictions have treaty arrangements that reduce or eliminate that liability, but reclaiming it requires documentation, timing, and process. Automated, this is recoverable value. Manual and deprioritised, it leaks quietly for years. I’ve seen organisations leave meaningful basis points on the table annually, not because the process was complicated, but because no one had made it anyone’s responsibility to care.

—

The Ownership Problem Is an Organisational Problem

Here’s the counter-intuitive part. The custodian almost always knows what is being left unrealised. They have the data. They can see the lending pool, the collateral inefficiency, the unclaimed reclaims. The better custodians will raise it. Some will raise it repeatedly.

But a conversation initiated by a service provider and received by an operations team produces a very specific kind of outcome: it produces a note in a file, a polite acknowledgement, and continued inaction. Not because the operations team is incompetent. Because they don’t have the authority to restructure a commercial relationship, and they know it.

The decision to activate securities lending, renegotiate collateral terms, or invest in tax reclaim automation is a capital allocation decision. It requires someone who owns the P&L implication, has the authority to engage the custodian at a principal level, and has set aside time to actually review the economics, not just the operational SLAs.

Back-office decisions made at back-office levels produce back-office outcomes. This is not a criticism of operations professionals. It’s a structural observation about where certain categories of decision need to live.

—

What This Means in Practice

If your custody relationship doesn’t have a named senior owner reviewing the economics quarterly, you don’t have a custody strategy. You have a contract. Those are genuinely not the same thing.

This applies equally to asset managers, fintech platforms with balance sheet exposure, family offices, and corporate treasuries with cross-border holdings. The specifics vary. The pattern doesn’t. And if you’re building or advising on the infrastructure layer, as I’ve written about in the context of cyber risk and human decision-making, the lesson is the same: the technical capability is rarely the constraint. The governance around it usually is.

The founder I spoke to last month is running a better operation now. Not because he found new information. Because he changed who owned the question.

Capital doesn’t care who you assigned the problem to. It only cares whether someone with authority is paying attention.