IOSCO Publishes Responses to CPSS/IOSCO Consultative Report on RRP for FMI

On 8 November 2013, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published links to the public responses it has received to the consultative report published jointly with the Committee on Payment and Settlement Services (CPSS) in August 2013.

Responses include:

  • The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) and Managed Funds Association (AIM).
  • The European Banking Federation (EBF).
Advertisements

Battle Lines Drawn Over CCP Resolvability

Introduction

In the context of the continuing industry and regulator discussion regarding CCP resolvability, last week ISDA published a position paper entitled “CCP Loss Allocation at the End of the Waterfall”.  The paper addresses two scenarios:

  • “Default Losses” – i.e. losses that remain unallocated once the ‘default waterfall’ is exhausted following a clearing member (“CM”) default; and
  • “Non-default Losses” – i.e. losses that do not relate to a CM default but exceed the CCP’s financial resources above the minimum regulatory capital requirements.

Default Losses

ISDA recognises the importance of central clearing for standard OTC derivatives, the difficulty of achieving optimal CCP recovery and resolution and the fact that no loss allocation system can avoid allocating losses to CMs.  It takes the view that residual CCP losses should be borne not by the taxpayer, nor solely by surviving CMs who as guarantors have no control over losses.  Rather, ISDA believes that all CMs with mark-to-market gains since the onset of the CCP default should share the burden of CCP losses.  Accordingly, ISDA is an advocate of Variation Margin Gains Haircutting (“VMGH”) being applied at the end of the default waterfall.

Under a VMGH methodology, the CCP would impose a haircut on cumulative variation margin gains which have accumulated since the day of the CM default.  In doing so, ISDA believes that:

  • losses fall to those best able to control their loss allocation by flattening or changing their trade positions;
  • CMs with gains at risk are incentivised to assist in the default management process; and
  • in the event that the CCP runs out of resources, VMGH mimics the economics of insolvency.

ISDA believes that a VMGH methodology should not have an adverse impact on the ability of a CM to net exposures or gain the appropriate regulatory capital treatment for client positions held at the CCP[1].  In contrast to contractual tear-up provisions or forced allocation mechanisms, VMGH allows a CM to assume that its portfolio of cleared transactions outstanding as of any given date will be the same as of the point of a CCP’s insolvency (because there is no mechanism by which they can be extinguished prior to any netting process).  As such, because it has certainty with respect to its legal rights in the CCP’s insolvency, the CM should be able to conclude that netting sets remain enforceable.  In addition, to the extent that VMGH provides incremental resources to the CCP, ISDA believes that it effectively protects initial margin held at a CCP and therefore strengthens segregation.

In theory, VMGH should always be sufficient to cover a defaulting CM’s mark-to-market losses in the same period.  However, if in practice this was not the case (e.g. because the CCP was not able to determine a price for the defaulting CM’s portfolio) and in the absence of other CMs voluntarily assuming positions of the defaulting CM, ISDA advocates a full tear-up of all of the CCP’s contracts in the product line that has exhausted its waterfall resources and has reached 100% haircut of VM gains.  ISDA contends that there should be no forced allocation of contracts, invoicing back, partial non-voluntary tear-ups, or any other CCP actions that threaten netting.  Furthermore, prior to the point of non-viability, ISDA believes that resolution authorities should not be entitled to interfere with the CCP’s loss allocation provisions (as detailed within its rules) unless not doing so would severely increase systemic risk.

Non-default Losses

An example of Non-default Loss (“NDL”) would be operational failure.  ISDA views NDL in a different light to Default Losses believing there to be no justification for reallocating NDL amongst CMs and other CCP participants.  Accordingly, it does not believe that VMGH (or similar end-of-the-waterfall options) are appropriate for allocation of NDL.  Rather, it considers that NDL should be borne first by the holders of the CCP’s equity and debt.

Conclusion

The ISDA paper is a useful contribution to the ongoing discussion around CCP resolvability.  It suggests a sensible CCP default waterfall,[2] but is probably most noteworthy for its opposition to initial margin (“IM”) haircutting as a resolution tool.  In ISDA’s view, IM haircutting would distort segregation and “bankruptcy remoteness”.  In doing so it would have significant adverse regulatory capital implications and would create disincentives for general participation in the default management process.  In this sense, it adopts the opposite position to that detailed by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (“CPSS”) and the International Organization of Securities Commission (“IOSCO”) in their recent consultative report on the Recovery of financial market infrastructures (see this blog post for more detail).  CPSS/IOSCO see IM haircutting as an effective tool which may facilitate access to a much larger pool of assets than VMGH.

There is general agreement on the principle that the taxpayer should never again have to pick up the tab following the failure of a systemically important firm.  On this basis alone, one suspects that IM haircutting will ultimately be included in the suite of resolution tools, if only to act as additional buffer between derivatives losses and the public purse.  In fairness, it’s difficult to see how a general tear-up of contracts is consistent with one of the underlying goals of CCP resolution – to ensure the continuity of critical services.  Ultimately, however, we will have to wait to see whether the contagion which may result from ISDA’s tear-ups outweighs the regulatory impact associated with CPSS/IOSCO’s IM haircutting.


[1] Pursuant to Article 306(1)(c) of the Capital Requirements Regulation, a CM will likely have to be able to pass on the impact of a CCP default to its clients in order to attract the appropriate regulatory capital treatment

[2] See page 8

RRP for Non-Banks – Is Your Data Up to Scratch?

On 12 August 2013, the Financial Stability Board published a consultation document regarding the “Application of the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes to Non-Bank Financial Institutions”, inviting comments by 15 October 2013.

The consultation document proposes draft guidance on how the Key Attributes should be implemented with respect to systemically important non-bank financial institutions.  It deals with three main areas:

  • The resolution of financial market infrastructure (FMI) and systemically important FMI participants;
  • Resolution of insurers; and
  • Client asset protection in resolution.

The proposed rules are, to a large extent, little more than the formalisation of existing thought and best practice regarding the resolution of non-bank financial institutions.  However, this does not detract from the value of the document.  Indeed, it highlights the practical challenge that institutions which are subject to the rules will face in providing the data necessary to facilitate the implementation of resolution measures by regulators.

Both FMIs and insurers will be required to maintain information systems and controls that can promptly produce, both in normal times and during resolution, all data needed for the purposes of timely resolution planning and resolution.  In the case of FMIs, this will include:

  • Information on direct and indirect stakeholders, such as owners, settlement agents, liquidity providers, linked FMIs and custodians;
  • Exposures to each FMI participant (both gross and net);
  • Information on the current status of obligations of FMI participants (e.g. whether they have fulfilled their obligations to make default fund contributions);
  • FMI participant collateral information, such as:
    • location;
    • holding arrangements; and
    • rehypothecation rights; and
    • netting arrangements.

Insurers will also be required to generate data regarding:

  • sources of funding;
  • asset quality and concentration levels; and
  • derivatives portfolios.

In addition, any entity holding client money, must have the ability to generate a wide variety of data that would facilitate its speedy return in a resolution scenario.  That data must be in a format understandable by an external party such as a resolution authority or an administrator and includes information on:

  • the amount, nature and ownership status of client assets held by the firm (directly or indirectly);
  • the identity of clients;
  • the location of client assets;
  • the identity of all relevant depositories;
  • the terms and conditions on which client assets are held;
  • the applicable type of segregation (e.g. “omnibus” or “individual”);
  • the effects of the segregation on client ownership rights;
  • applicable client asset protections (particularly where client assets are held in a foreign jurisdictions);
  • any waiver, modification or opting out by a client of the client asset protection regime;
  • the ownership rights of clients and any potential limitations to those rights;
  • the existence and exercise of rehypothecation rights; and
  • outstanding loans of client securities arranged by the firm as agent, including details of:
    • counterparties;
    • contract terms; and
    • collateral received.

If the experience of banks is anything to go by, the capture, analysis, delivery and updating of this type of data is a significant undertaking.  The FSB is clearly laying out its intentions and the direction of travel on this issue.  As such, non-bank financial institutions would do well to start analysing their capabilities in these areas, with a view to upgrading their data architectures where necessary.

HM Treasury to Extend Special Administration and Resolution Regimes

On 25 April 2013, HM Treasury published a consultation paper on the introduction of a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for inter-bank payment systems (such as Bacs, CHAPS, Continuous Linked Settlement, CREST, LCH Clearnet Ltd, Faster Payments Service and ICE Clear Europe), operators of securities settlement systems (CREST being the only example in the UK) and key service providers to these firms (e.g. IT and telecommunications providers).  Responses are requested by Wednesday 19 June 2013.

The SAR would be a variant of a normal corporate administration and would be modelled on the special administration framework used in the utilities industries and the investment bank SAR.  However, it would be modified to allow the Bank of England to exercise control of the SAR process, to enable a special administrator to transfer all or part of the business to an aquirer on an expedited basis, and to facilitate the enforcement of restrictions on early termination of third party contracts.  Under the SAR, the special administrator would have the overarching objective of maintaining the continuity of critical payment and settlement services in the interest of UK financial stability. “Non-CCP FMI”, such as exchanges and trade repositories, and entities already covered by resolution powers for central counterparties (such as LCH and ICE) would be excluded from the regime.

On 25 April 2013, HM Treasury also published a statement confirming the fact that, before the end of the summer, it will consult on the extension of the special resolution regime (SRR) established under the Banking Act 2009 to group companies, investment firms and UK clearing houses.

EU Commission Publishes Summary of Responses to Non-Bank RRP Consultation

Introduction

On 8 March 2013, the EU Commission published a summary of the responses (67 in total) it received to its October 2012 consultation on a possible recovery and resolution framework for financial institutions other than banks.  There is also a set of links to individual responses.

The summary addresses views expressed on the three categories of financial Institutions considered in the consultation, being:

  • financial market infrastructures (“FMI”) i.e. central counterparties (“CCP”) and central securities depositories (“CSD”);
  • insurance companies; and
  • other non-bank entities and institutions e.g. payment systems.

Financial Market Infrastructures

There was general agreement on the need for recovery and resolution plans (“RRP”) for FMIs, due to their systemic importance.  Although resolution measures for all FMIs should focus on ensuring the continuity of essential services, the RRP regimes for CCPs and CSDs should be tailored, reflecting the general view that CCPs are more systemically important than CSDs.  Both the RRP regimes for CCPs and CSDs should be different from the current proposals regarding RRP for banks, although powers to transfer operations of a failing FMI to a purchaser or bridge entity would still be required.  There was little common ground on the application of loss allocation to FMI beyond the need for predictability, clarity, preciseness, transparency and parity.

Insurance and Reinsurance Firms

There was a wide-spread recognition that insurance companies are less systemically important that banks and that Solvency II will enhance supervisors’ powers of intervention.  Nonetheless, except amongst insurers, there was general support for further investigation into the scope for resolution tools which could protect policyholders as well as financial stability in the event of an insurer’s failure. However, even outside of the insurance industry, there was no conclusive support as to the need for a detailed RRP framework.  The insurance industry objected to insurance-specific RRP proposals, arguing at a high-level that there is no evidence that RRP is needed and specifically that:

  • as yet, no sources of systemic risk in insurance have been identified;
  • consistency with international developments must be ensured before the EU legislates;
  • the current framework is sufficient, particularly in light of Solvency II; and
  • bank RRP is not suited to the insurance industry.

Other non-bank financial institutions

The majority of respondents expressed the view that payment systems currently do not require further consideration from an RRP perspective due to the fact that they are subject to central bank oversight.

AIMA Questions Systemic Importance of Funds

Introduction

On 11 January 2013, the Alternative Investment Management Association (“AIMA”) published its response to the EU Commission’s Consultation on a Possible Recovery and Resolution Framework for Financial Institutions Other than Banks (the “Consultation”).

Identifying Systemic Importance

AIMA supports the introduction of a robust and effective framework for dealing with the recovery and resolution of systemically important non-bank financial institutions, but believes that neither hedge fund managers nor asset managers are systemically important given their nature, size, activities and structures, as well as the regulatory environment in which they operate.  In contrast, it agrees that central counterparties (“CCPs”) are, in general, systemically important and that national insolvency laws are not adequate to address CCP failures.

Resolution Objectives

AIMA proposes that an alternative resolution objective be adopted in place of the main objective currently within the Consultation i.e. maintenance of critical functions. This alternative objective would stress the need to ensure the rapid and efficient liquidation of all open positions of all CCP members and the timely return of client monies.

Resolution Tools

AIMA is concerned that the tools designed for the resolution of banks or large investment firms are not suitable for CCP resolution.  It also advocates that certain aspects of the Recovery and Resolution Directive (“RRD”) be revisited, proposing that:

  • all CCP clearing members be subject to the RRD;
  • the main objectives of resolution under the RRD are amended to include the continuity of CCP services; and
  • haircuts not be applied to open derivative positions or to margin held by CCPs or clearing members.

AIMA regards the sale of business and asset separation tools as potentially unsuitable for CCPs primarily due to the lack of substitutability between CCPs and the practical difficulties in effecting a transfer of a failed CCPs services to a private sector purchaser.  With respect to the bridge institution tool, AIMA expresses concerns that the sheer operational complexity of CCP activities reduces the likelihood of a successful application of the tool.

AIMA also regards traditional bail-in as being unsuitable to a CCP resolution.  It believes that loss allocation mechanisms for CCPs must avoid the bail-in of open derivative positions held by CCPs and clearing members.  It also regards the haircutting of margin as undesirable, particularly the haircutting of variation margin for ‘in the money’ participants which it views as entirely arbitrary.  It considers that specific liquidity calls on clearing members implies unlimited liability (which may result in higher capital and liquidity charges on clearing members), may exacerbate pro-cyclicality and will potentially promote contagion.  Instead, AIMA stresses the importance of robust pre-failure capitalisation measures and the use of ex-ante resolution funds in order to avoid the need to apply such loss allocation/recapitalisation tools.

Conclusion

AIMA is right to question the application of this legislation to asset managers and hedge fund managers, although its argument that the use of ‘gates’ and ‘side pickets’ are factors which reduce systemic importance is a little difficult to follow at times.  In general, it is not easy to see how funds can legitimately be regarded as systemically important.  However, ‘gates’ and ‘side pockets’ are generally regarded as mechanisms allowing the manager of a fund to manage its liquidity risks, rather than reducing systemic relevance per se.  Indeed, the use of ‘gates’ and ‘side pockets’ can actually amplify systemic risk – particularly in the case of institutional investors unable to redeem investments from affected funds.

With respect to some of the other AIMA proposals, CCP membership itself is not a definitive indicator of systemic importance.  Moreover, whilst AIMA makes a number of valid observations on the subject of loss allocation, there needs to be a recognition that, if ex-ante arrangements fail, losses must be allocated somewhere.  The haircutting of margin, particularly variation margin, is indeed unpalatable.  However, in the absence of an ultimate backstop provided by the taxpayer, we are yet to see a better solution.

EBA Responds to EU Commission’s Consultation on RRP for Non-Banks

On 21 December 2012, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published its response to the EU Commission’s “Consultation on a Possible Recovery and Resolution Framework for Financial Institutions Other Than Banks”.

In general, the EBA believes it important that RRP regimes should be harmonised so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage across borders and between industries such as banking and insurance.  Clear guidance should also be provided on the circumstances and extent to which FMIs which also hold banking licences will be subject to bank or non-bank resolution proposals.  Ultimately, it may be necessary to extend the non-bank RRP proposals to include ‘shadow banking’ entities such as money market funds and hedge funds.

The EBA agrees that the objectives of a resolution regime for FMIs should be aligned with those of banks, namely the continuation of critical functions and the maintenance of financial stability.  Cross-border co-ordination in the form of supervisory Resolution Colleges should also be encouraged.

With respect to resolution tools, the EBA supports the proposal concerning the transfer of critical functions of a failing FMI to a surviving FMI.  In order to facilitate such a transfer, the EBA suggests that ex-ante operational arrangements between FMIs should be established and specifically endorses the actions referred to in the FSB “Key Attributes” paper, namely:

  • A centralised repository for all FMI membership agreements;
  • Standardised documentation for payment services;
  • Draft transition services agreement; and
  • A ‘purchasers’ pack’ including key information on payment operations and credit exposures, and lists of key staff.

With respect to loss-allocation tools, specifically the haircutting of margin held on behalf of clearing members of a failing FMI, the EBA believes that more consideration should be given to the specific circumstances of the clearing member and their ability to actually absorb losses so as to avoid the possibility of financial contagion.  Moreover, any loss-allocation mechanism which goes beyond normal pre-funded loss mutualisation measures (i.e. the guarantee fund) should be closely coordinated with authorities responsible for the supervision and oversight of the clearing members.

On the subject of group resolution of FMIs, the EBA is of the opinion that any recovery and resolution framework should aim to maintain the ‘healthy’ parts of the FMI in question.  In order to protect these ‘healthy’ parts, it may be necessary to wind up or even ‘tear up clearing’ of specific instruments.  In addition, it may be prudent to allow for one part of an FMI group to provide temporary financial support to an FMI in difficulty, provided that this does not risk contagion or involve lending to an insolvent entity.