Digital assets are increasingly being accepted alongside traditional securities as collateral in structured lending. This case study shows how a $2M facility was arranged against a blended portfolio of listed equities and USDC using a single cross-collateralised structure.

A client comes to us holding a $6 million portfolio. Roughly half is in listed equities. The other half is in USDC - a US dollar-pegged stablecoin. He wants to raise $2 million in liquidity without selling either position.

Ten years ago, the answer would have been: use the equities. The digital assets are not really a borrowing base.

Five years ago: use the equities, and maybe - maybe - there is one lender who will consider the crypto separately.

Today, we arranged a cross-collateralised facility that combined both asset classes in a single credit structure. $2 million at 33 per cent loan-to-value, priced at 0.8 per cent margin over EURIBOR (approximately 2.7 per cent at the time of completion), with no arrangement fees and full line-of-credit flexibility. One lender, one facility, one coherent borrowing base.

That shift - from "crypto is not collateral" to "crypto belongs in the facility alongside everything else" - is one of the more significant changes I have seen in high-value lending over the past two years.

The case for cross-collateralisation

The structural logic here is worth understanding. When a lender accepts only one asset class as security, they concentrate their risk - and so does the borrower. A client who borrows at, say, 60 per cent LTV against a single stock portfolio has little buffer if that portfolio drops. Margin calls arrive quickly. Assets get sold at the wrong time.

By including USDC alongside the equities, our client spread the collateral base. USDC is pegged to the dollar - its value does not move in the same way a technology equity might. The combined portfolio is more resilient as a collateral base precisely because the two asset classes behave differently. That diversification benefits the lender as much as the borrower.

At 33 per cent LTV across $6 million, there is also substantial headroom. The facility would remain intact even if both the equities and the stablecoin declined meaningfully. That buffer is deliberate. This is why the lender could offer competitive pricing and avoid arrangement fees.

Why most lenders still won't do this

The honest answer is operational rather than philosophical. Accepting digital assets as collateral requires specific infrastructure: custody arrangements, valuation methodologies, monitoring processes, and legal frameworks that most traditional lenders simply do not have.

Private banks almost universally decline. They have regulatory constraints, risk committees that do not yet treat digital assets as an accepted asset class, and in many cases, relationship managers who are unfamiliar with the product. That is not a criticism - it is a structural reality that will take time to change.

Specialist lenders are moving faster. The pool of institutions able to accept listed securities alongside digital assets in a single facility is still small. But it is growing, and the terms are improving as competition increases. Two years ago, a deal of this type would have attracted a premium rate and arrangement fees as standard. Neither applied here.

The client profile matters too

Our client was a French national based in Dubai. That international profile - non-UK, non-EU resident, holding assets in multiple jurisdictions - would exclude many standard lenders regardless of the digital asset question.

The combination of cross-border complexity and digital asset exposure creates a genuinely narrow lender pool. Matching the client to the right institution required knowing which specialists operate across both dimensions. That is where the brokerage function adds most of its value: not in finding A lender, but in finding THE lender at the right terms.

What comes next

The direction is clear. HNW investors - particularly those who are internationally mobile and younger - increasingly hold portfolios that span traditional securities, real assets, and digital holdings. Those portfolios are their balance sheets. The borrowing infrastructure that reflects that reality is still catching up.

For now, the structures exist. The pricing is competitive. The lender pool is narrow but accessible to those who know where to look.

For investors sitting on a blended portfolio and considering how best to access liquidity without disrupting either position, the question is no longer whether cross-collateralised lending is possible. It is who to call.

Read the full case study here: https://www.ennessglobal.com/insights/case-studies/2m-facility-secured-against-investment-portfolio-and-digital-assets