
Related
Global regulators have tightened their scrutiny of whether clearing houses hold enough capital and cash to avoid calling on taxpayers in a crisis, according to new guidelines published on Monday by the Financial Stability Board (FSB).
However, a key demand from a group of major global banks and investors that clearing houses themselves should take on more of the financial burden of any market losses has been kicked down the road.
The FSB, which coordinates financial rules for the Group of 20 Economies (G20), said the recent market turmoil due to the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the benefits effective clearing brings to markets.
Clearing houses are already required to have default funds to ensure a trade is completed even if one side of a transaction goes bust, and the fund must be big enough to cope with its two biggest members failing.
The new guidance also now sets out how the default fund must be replenished after covering losses.
But the shift to central clearing of derivatives to improve transparency in markets since the financial crisis a decade ago has further increased the systemic importance of clearing houses and more work was needed, the FSB said.
Such work next year will consider rules on the use, composition and amount of financial resources clearers should have if they find themselves on the brink of collapse and need "resolving", or closing down, it said.
"This would include assessing whether any new types of pre-funded resources would be necessary to enhance central counterparty resolvability," the FSB said.
Earlier this year, nine global banks and investment management companies said clearing houses needed to have more of their own capital at risk as an incentive to limit risky trading.
The group also wants a bigger say in how clearing houses are run as they worry that they, as members, will end up plugging the losses if clearers are not properly resourced.
However, clearers argue that it is members such as banks that create the risk and therefore they should be contributing to the clearers default fund.
However, a key demand from a group of major global banks and investors that clearing houses themselves should take on more of the financial burden of any market losses has been kicked down the road.
The FSB, which coordinates financial rules for the Group of 20 Economies (G20), said the recent market turmoil due to the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the benefits effective clearing brings to markets.
Clearing houses are already required to have default funds to ensure a trade is completed even if one side of a transaction goes bust, and the fund must be big enough to cope with its two biggest members failing.
The new guidance also now sets out how the default fund must be replenished after covering losses.
But the shift to central clearing of derivatives to improve transparency in markets since the financial crisis a decade ago has further increased the systemic importance of clearing houses and more work was needed, the FSB said.
Such work next year will consider rules on the use, composition and amount of financial resources clearers should have if they find themselves on the brink of collapse and need "resolving", or closing down, it said.
"This would include assessing whether any new types of pre-funded resources would be necessary to enhance central counterparty resolvability," the FSB said.
Earlier this year, nine global banks and investment management companies said clearing houses needed to have more of their own capital at risk as an incentive to limit risky trading.
The group also wants a bigger say in how clearing houses are run as they worry that they, as members, will end up plugging the losses if clearers are not properly resourced.
However, clearers argue that it is members such as banks that create the risk and therefore they should be contributing to the clearers default fund.
Read More News on
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
Also Read
America Decides: A country in crisis
Joe Biden will face this overlooked crisis on day 1
The Covid crisis exposed what financial reformers missed
How RBI made the rupee more resilient amid an economic crisis
‘Crisis will increase awareness on the need to get a cover’
UK 'sleep-walking' into personal debt crisis, warns charity
1 Comment on this Story
Kiran Karnati19 minutes ago let me bring my argument. sustainability of independent clearing house is simply ridiculous. do you know the reason every time financial markets are obsessed with interference. the interference is mostly not due to abnormal behaviour but undertaken challenges. the functionality of clearing houses is very judgemental. the judgement is most often because of labour work rather than variable systems. I see the finite analysis of clearing houses has to be maintained in organized formula so that every time they do not interfere. the role of clearing house has to be stable and should bring confidence rather than abrupt challenges that are hindered. I see clearing house should have a role of playing level field so abnormalities are limited to scheduled times. the scheduled times are bargaining power houses that should be avoided to protect sentiments of the market rather than regular expansion in uneven procedures. |