DB Experience Highlights RRP Challenge

Risk Magazine has published an article in which Deutsche Bank highlights the issues it has experienced in complying with global recovery and resolution plan (RRP) requirements.

This is an all too common story.  The lack of guidance from regulators, absence of globally coordinated regulatory requirements and the move towards subsidiarisation combine to pose a significant challenge to firms which are subject to RRP rules.  From experience, the only real solution lies in the creation of a robust yet flexible data architecture, capable of serving up only that view of information which is necessary for the particular audience and with the capacity to adapt to meet future regulatory developments.

Advertisements

SPE and MPE – which are you?

Introduction

On 14 October, the Bank of England published a speech given by Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor Financial Stability, at the Institute of International Finance 2013 Annual Membership meeting on 12 October 2013 on the subject of ‘too big to fail’.

Mr Tucker made five general points:

  1. The US authorities could resolve most US SIFIs right now on a ‘top-down’ basis pursuant to the powers granted under Title II of the Dodd Frank Act;
  2. Single Point of Entry (SPE) versus Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) may be the most important innovation in banking policy in decades;
  3. There is no such thing as a “bail-in bond”.  Bail in is a resolution tool.  All creditors can face having to absorb losses.  What matters is the creditor hierarchy;
  4. Some impediments to smooth cross-border resolution need to be removed; and
  5. The resolution agenda is not just about banks and dealers.  It is about central counterparties too, for example.

Reorganisation

Mr Tucker noted that Europe is not far behind the US in its enactment of resolution powers.  However, of more interest to the industry will be his belief that most banking groups will have to undergo some kind of reorganisation, irrespective of the camp into which they fall.  SPE groups will need to establish holding companies from which loss-absorbing bonds can be issued.  In addition, key subsidiaries will need to issue debt to their holding companies that can be written down in times of distress.  MPE groups will need to do more to organise themselves into well-defined regional and functional subgroups.  In addition common services, such as IT will need to be provided by stand-alone entities that can survive the break-up of an MPE group.  Capital requirements for regional subsidiaries forming part of an MPE group may also be higher due to the absence of a parent/holding company that can act as a source of strength through a resolution process.

Bail-in

On the subject to bail-in, creditors of SPE groups will be interested to read Mr Tucker’s comments about how, within the context of a top-down resolution, bonds issued by a holding company will absorb losses before debt issued by an operating subsidiary.  In effect, the holding company’s creditors are structurally subordinated to the operating company’s creditors.

Impediments to Resolution

On the subject to impediments to cross-border resolution, Mr Tucker noted that, in order to provide clarity on its previous ‘in principle’ commitment, the Bank of England needs to set down detailed conditions under which it would step aside and allow US authorities to resolve the UK subsidiaries of a US banking group.  In turn, other resolution authorities, and particularly the US, need to make the same ‘in principle’ commitment as the Bank of England.

Extension of the Resolution Regime

Finally, on the subject of the resolution agenda, Mr Tucker confirmed that CCPs are the most important example of where resolution regimes need to apply.  However, he did not rule out resolution regimes being extended to cover shadow banking, funds and SPVs.

HM Treasury Publishes Draft Annex to SRR Code of Practice

Introduction

On 8 October 2013, HM Treasury published a draft annex on the new bail-in option to the Special Resolution Regime (SRR). The bail-in tool is being introduced through amendments to the Banking Act 2009 by the Banking Reform Bill 2013 for the purpose of offering a new stabilisation option to the Bank of England as lead resolution authority. It will be available to failing banks and investment firms, with necessary modifications to building societies via secondary legislation and under specified conditions to banking group companies.

The draft annex to the Code of Practice supports the legal framework for the SRR and provides guidance as to when and how the bail-in tool may be deployed by authorities in practice.

A summary of the key points include:

General and Specific Conditions for Use of SRR Tools (Section 7)

The conditions for use of the bail-in option are identical to those for the stabilisation options set out in the existing Code :

  • the regulator must determine that the institution is failing or likely to fail;
  • it is not reasonably likely that action will be taken by or in respect of the bank to avoid its failure; and
  • the Bank of England is satisfied that exercising the bail-in power is necessary having regard to the public interest.

When choosing between the original resolution tools, the Bank of England will consider the relative merits of the stabilisation options and the bank insolvency procedure given the circumstances in addition to general considerations . The Bank of England may also choose resolution by way of bail-in for situations where the use of another stabilisation power would threaten financial stability or confidence in the banking systems.

Use of the Bail-in Powers (Section 8)

The bail-in option gives the Bank of England the power to cancel or modify the terms of any contract in a resolution scenario for the purposes of reducing or deferring a liability of the bank (“special bail-in provision”). A conversion power also exists that allows for liabilities to be converted into different forms. Certain liabilities are excluded from the scope of the power to make special bail-in provision including:

  • deposits covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) or an equivalent overseas scheme;
  • liabilities to the extent they are secured;
  • client assets, including client money;
  • liabilities with an original maturity of less than seven days which are owed to a credit institution or investment firm (save in relation to credit institutions or investment firms which are banking group companies in relation to the bank);
  • liabilities arising from participation in a designated settlement system and owed to such systems, or to operators or participants in such systems;
  • liabilities owed to central counterparties recognised by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 648/2012;
  • liabilities to employees or former employees in relation to accrued salary or other remuneration (with the exception of variable remuneration);
  • liabilities owed to employees or former employees in relation to rights under a pension scheme (with the exception of discretionary benefits); and
  • liabilities to a creditor arising from the provision of goods or services (other than financial services) that are critical to the daily functioning of the bank’s operations (with the exception of creditors that are companies which are banking group companies in relation to the bank).

Prior to taking resolution action or converting liabilities, resolution authorities are expected to carry out a valuation of the assets and liabilities of the institution as is reasonably practicable.

The UK has chosen to exercise the discretion granted to it under the Recovery and Resolution Directive and has included derivatives in the list of liabilities which can be bailed-in. Specific power to make special bail-in provision to derivatives and similar financial transactions can be found in Sections 8.14 – 8.17 of the Annex. The Bank of England will, where appropriate, exercise its power to close-out contracts before they are bailed in with any applicable close-out netting being taken into account. If a liability is owed, it will be excluded from bail-in so far as it is secured and compensation arrangements will follow the “no creditor worse off” principle. This ensures that no person is worse off as a result of the application of the bail-in option than they would have been had the bank gone into insolvency.

RRD Pushed Back Yet Again

On 20 September 2013, the EU Parliament updated its procedure file on the Recovery and Resolution Directive (RRD).  It seems that the RRD proposal will now be considered at the Parliament’s plenary session scheduled for 3 to 6 February 2014, rather than the session scheduled for 18 to 21 November 2013, as was previously the case.

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.

Single Point of Entry or Multiple Point of Entry: the Choice is Yours?

Here is a link to an article in today’s FT explaining that, following the FSB guidance issued on 16 July 2013 (see this blog post for more detail), banks seem likely to be given more ‘choice’ between single point of entry and multiple point of entry.  This seems to represent a subtle shift away from the previous consensus that had been developing within regulatory circles regarding the benefits of single point of entry over multiple point of entry.  However, the quid pro quo is that banks will have to implement potentially wide-ranging changes in order to make their business models more consistent with their chosen resolution mechanism.