Streetwise Professor

October 24, 2015

Creeping Recognition that Regulation Has Created a Liquidity Death Star

Reason number one (by far) that I believe that clearing and collateral mandates increase systemic risk is that they transform credit risk into liquidity risk. Large price moves during stressed market situations require those with losing positions to make large variation margin payments in a very tight frame. These payments need to be funded, and funded immediately. Thus, variation margining causes spikes in the demand for liquidity. Furthermore, clearing in particular creates tight coupling because failures-or even delays-in making VM payments can put the clearinghouse into default, or force it to liquidate collateral in an illiquid market. The consequences of that, you should shudder to contemplate.

To be somewhat hyperbolic, clearing mandates create a sort of liquidity death star.

Recognition of how dangerous spikes in liquidity demand precisely when liquidity supply evaporates creates a major systemic risk is sadly insufficiently widespread, particularly among many regulators who still sing paeans to the glories of clearing. But perhaps awareness is spreading, albeit slowly. At least I hope that this Economist article indicates a greater appreciation of the collateral issue, although it fails to draw the connection to central clearing, and how clearing mandates can dramatically exacerbate collateral shortages:

WHEN the financial system teetered on the brink of collapse in 2008, the biggest problem was a lack of liquidity. Banks were unable to refinance themselves in the short-term debt markets. Central banks had to step in on a massive scale to offer support. Calm was eventually restored, but not without enormous economic damage.

But has the underlying problem of liquidity gone away? A research note from Michael Howell of Crossborder Capital argues that, in the modern financial system, central banks are no longer the only, or even the main, providers of liquidity. Instead, the system looks a lot like that of the Victorian era, with banks dependent on the wholesale markets for funding. Back then, the trade bill was the key asset for bank financing; now it is the mysteriously named “repo” market.

. . . .

Bigger haircuts mean that borrowers need more collateral than before in order to fund themselves. “When market volatility jumps, funding capacity drops in tandem and often substantially,” writes Mr Howell. The result, a liquidity squeeze at the worst possible moment, is a template of how the next crisis may occur (although regulators are trying to reduce banks’ reliance on short-term funding).

And again, it is at these times when the need to fund VM payments will kick in, exacerbating the liquidity squeeze. Moreover, clearing also ties up a lot of the assets (e.g., Treasuries, or cash) that firms could normally borrow against to raise cash. Perversely, that collateral can be accessed only if a clearing member defaults on a variation margin payment.

Just what the liquidity supply mechanism will be in the next crisis in the new cleared world is not quite, well, clear. As the Economist article (and the Crossborder Capital note upon which it is based) demonstrate, central banks lend against collateral, and the collateral constraint will already be binding in stress situation. Presumably central banks will have to be much more expansive in their definition of what constitutes “good” collateral (a la Bagehot).

It still astounds me that even though every major financial crisis in history has been at root a liquidity crisis, in their infinite wisdom the betters who presume to govern us thought they were solving systemic risk problems by imposing a mechanism that will sharply increase liquidity demand and restrict liquidity supply during periods of market stress. That should work out really, really swell.

Print Friendly

October 10, 2015

Igor Gensler Helps the Wicked Witch of the West Wing Create Son of Frankendodd

Hillary Clinton has announced her program to reform Wall Street. Again.

The actual author of the plan is said to be my old buddy, GiGi: Gary Gensler.

Gensler, if you will recall, was the Igor to Dr. Frankendodd, the loyal assistant who did the hard work to bring the monster to life. Now he is teaming with the Wicked Witch of the West Wing to create Son of Frankendodd.

There are a few reasonable things in the proposal. A risk charge on bigger, more complex institutions makes sense, although the details are devilish.

But for the most part, it is ill-conceived, as one would expect from Gensler.

For instance, it proposes regulating haircuts on repo loans. As I said frequently in the 2009-2010 period, attempting to impose these sorts of requirements on heterogeneous transactions is a form of price control that will lead some risks to be underpriced and some risks to be overpriced. This will create distorted incentives that are likely to increase risks and misallocations, rather than reduce them.

A tax on HFT has received the most attention:

The growth of high-frequency trading (HFT) has unnecessarily burdened our markets and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies that often capitalize on a “two-tiered” market structure with obsolete rules. That’s why Clinton would impose a tax targeted specifically at harmful HFT. In particular, the tax would hit HFT strategies involving excessive levels of order cancellations, which make our markets less stable and less fair.

This is completely wrongheaded. HFT has not “burdened” our markets. It has been a form of creative destruction that has made traditional intermediaries obsolete, and in so doing has dramatically reduced trading costs. Yes, a baroque market structure in equities has created opportunities for rent seeking by HFT firms, but that was created by regulations, RegNMS in particular. So why not fix the rules (which in Hillary and Gensler acknowledge are problematic) rather than kneecap those who are responding to the incentives the rules create?

Furthermore, the particular remedy proposed here is completely idiotic. “Excessive levels of order cancellations.” Just who is capable of determining what is “excessive”? Furthermore, the ability to cancel orders rapidly is exactly what allows HFT to supply liquidity cheaply, because it limits their vulnerability to adverse selection. High rates of order cancellation are a feature, not a bug, in market making.

It is particularly ironic that Hillary pitches this as a matter of protecting “everyday investors.” FFS, “everyday investors” trading in small quantities are the ones who have gained most from the HFT-caused narrowing of bid-ask spreads.

Hillary also targets dark pools, another target of popular ignorance. Dark pools reduce trading costs for institutional investors, many of whom are investing the money of “everyday” people.

The proposal also gives Gensler an opportunity to ride one of his hobby horses, the Swaps Pushout Rule. This is another inane idea that is completely at odds with its purported purpose. It breaks netting sets and if anything makes the financial system more complex, and certainly makes financial institutions more complex. It also discriminates against commodities and increases the costs of managing commodity price risk.

The most bizarre part of the proposal would require financial institutions to demonstrate to regulators that they can be managed effectively.

Require firms that are too large and too risky to be managed effectively to reorganize, downsize, or break apart. The complexity and scope of many of the largest financial institutions can create risks for our economy by increasing both the likelihood that firms will fail and the economic damage that such failures can cause.[xiv] That’s why, as President, Clinton would pursue legislation that enhances regulators’ authorities under Dodd-Frank to ensure that no financial institution is too large and too risky to manage. Large financial firms would need to demonstrate to regulators that they can be managed effectively, with appropriate accountability across all of their activities. If firms can’t be managed effectively, regulators would have the explicit statutory authorization to require that they reorganize, downsize, or break apart. And Clinton would appoint regulators who would use both these new authorities and the substantial authorities they already have to hold firms accountable.

Just how would you demonstrate this? What would be the criteria? Why should we believe that regulators have the knowledge or expertise to make these judgments?

I have a Modest Proposal of my own. How about a rule that requires legislators and regulators to demonstrate that they have the competence to manage entire sectors of the economy, and in particular, have the competence to understand, let alone manage, an extraordinarily complex emergent order like the financial system? If some firms are too complex to manage, isn’t an ecosystem consisting of many such firms interacting in highly non-linear ways exponentially more complex to control, especially through the cumbersome process of legislation and regulation? Shouldn’t regulators demonstrate they are up to the task?

But of course Gensler and his ilk believe that they are somehow superior to those who manage financial firms. They are oblivious to the Knowledge Problem, and can see the speck in every banker’s eye, but don’t notice the log in their own.

People like Gensler and Hillary, who are so hubristic to presume that they can design and regulate the complex financial system, are by far the biggest systemic risk. Frankendodd was bad enough, but Son of Frankendodd looks to be an even worse horror show, and is almost guaranteed to be so if Gensler is the one in charge, as he clearly aims to be.

Print Friendly

September 28, 2015

Regulation Confronts Reality In the Commodity Markets. Reality Is Losing.

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Financial crisis,Regulation — The Professor @ 6:36 pm

Following the commodities markets today was like drinking from a fire hose. Many big stories, with “up” and “down” being the operative words. Alcoa split up. Shell announcing that it was giving up on its Arctic plans after its controversial test well failed to find commercially viable reserves. Oil price down around 3 percent, etc.

But the biggest news items were Glencore’s continuing downward spiral, and ESMA’s release of its technical recommendations for application of MiFID to non-financial firms, including commodity firms.

Glencore’s stock was down hard at the open, and at one point was down 31 percent. It’s CDS are now trading up-front (always a bad sign), and the spread widened from an already big 550 bp to 757 bp. At conventional recovery rates, this gives a (risk neutralized) probability of default of better than 50 percent. The Biggest Loser was Glencore’s CEO, Ivan Glasenberg, AKA, Ex-Glencore Billionaire.

The CDS are now trading wider than when Glencore had it s last near-death experience at the height of the financial crisis. Arguably the firm’s situation is worse now. It cannot attribute its woes to stressed financial market conditions generally, in which pretty much everyone saw spreads blow out to one degree or another. This is unique to it and the mining sector. It is a verdict on the firm/sector.

Moreover, in 2008 the firm was private, and Glasenberg and the other owners were able to stanch the bleeding by injecting additional capital into the firm. The ominous thing for Ivan et al now is that they tried that again a couple of weeks ago (along with announcing other measures to reduce debt and conserve cash) and it only bought a temporary respite before the blood started gushing again.

Moreover-and this is crucial-Glencore 2015 is a very different creature than Glencore 2008. It was more of a pure trader then: it is a mining firm with a big trading arm now. This means that its exposure to flat prices (of coal and copper in particular) is much bigger now. In fact, most commodity firms saw little drop off in profits in 2008-2009, and several saw profits increase. The fundamentals facing trading firms in 2008-2009 were not nearly as bad as the fundamentals facing mining firms today. That’s because their flat price exposures weren’t large, and margins and volumes (which drive trading profits) are not as sensitive to macro conditions as flat prices. Given the lack of any prospects for a rebound in flat prices, Glencore’s prospects for a recovery are muted.

Some tout Glasenberg et al’s trading acumen. But it is one thing to be able to sniff out arbs/relative mispricings and structure clever trades to exploit them. (Or to hold one’s nose while doing deals with dodgy regimes around the world.) It is something altogether different to predict where prices are going to go. Glencore made a bet on China, and now that bet is not looking good. At all.

In a nutshell, this is pretty much out of Glencore’s hands. It is along for the ride.

The irony here is that Glasenberg sold the Xstrata merger and the new business model as a way of using the less cyclical profitability of the trading venture as a way of dampening the cyclicality of the mining operation. As it is developing, an extremely adverse cyclical downturn in the mining operation is impairing the viability of the trading operation. How the trading operation can flourish within a financially distressed corporation is an open question. Maybe the company will have to pull an Alcoa, and separate the trading from the mining operations, to keep the latter from dragging down the former.

A key takeaway here relates to the other story I mentioned: ESMA’s release of its recommendations regarding the application of MiFID to non-financials. The objective is to mitigate systemic risk. I was always skeptical that commodity traders posed any such risk (and have been making that argument for 3+ years), and so far the Glencore meltdown is supporting that skepticism. There has been no evidence of spillovers/contagion from Glencore to financial institutions, or to the broader market, a la Lehman.

But ESMA has proposed Technical Standards that would impose the full panoply of CRD-IV capital requirements on commodity traders (and other non-financial firms) that cannot avail themselves of an exemption (on which I will say more momentarily).

  1. If firms cannot make use of an exemption under MiFID II, capital requirements under the new banking regulatory framework will apply to them. This new framework consists of Regulation EU No 575/2013 (CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV), repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC. While CRD IV is addressed to CAs and includes, inter alia, qualitative provisions on the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), the new CRR imposes quantitative requirements and disclosure obligations pursuant to Basel III recommendations on credit institutions and investment firms, including own funds definition, minimum own funds requirements and liquidity requirements. However, under Article 498(1) of CRR, some commodity dealers falling within the scope of MiFID are transitionally exempt from the CRR’s provisions on own funds requirements until 31 December 2017 at the latest, if their main business consists exclusively of providing investment services or activities relating to commodity derivatives.
  2. Moreover, firms falling within the scope of MiFID II will be considered to be financial counterparties rather than non-financial counterparties under Article 2(8) of EMIR. Therefore, they will not be able to benefit from the clearing thresholds or the hedging exemption available to the latter under Article 10 of EMIR. An additional consequence of being classified as a financial counterparty will be that the trading obligation (i.e. the obligation to trade derivatives which are subject to the clearing obligation and sufficiently liquid on trading venues only, cf. Article 28 of MiFIR) would apply in full without being subject to a threshold.

So, even if you aren’t a bank, you will be treated like a bank, unless you can get the exemption. Apropos what I said the other day about impoverished carpenters, hammers, nails, etc.

To get an exemption, a firm’s non-hedging derivatives business must fall below a particular threshold amount, e.g., 3 percent of the oil market, 4 percent of the metals market. ESMA recommends that hedges be determined using EMIR criteria. The big problem with this is that only months ago ESMA itself recognized that the EMIR framework is unworkable:

  1. It appears that the complex mechanism introduced by EMIR for the NFC+ [Non-Financial Company Plus] classification has so far led to significant difficulties in the identification, monitoring and, as a consequence, possible supervision of these entities by their competent authorities.
  2. As a result, in the context of the revision of EMIR, ESMA would see some merit in the simplification of the current framework for the determination of NFC+.
  3. One route that the Commission may wish to explore is to move from the current two-step process (Hedging/Non Hedging and clearing threshold) to a one-step process, where counterparties would qualify as NFC+ when their outstanding positions exceeds certain thresholds per asset class, irrespective of the qualification of the trades as hedging or non-hedging. This idea is further developed in Section 4.2 which addresses the way in which NFCs qualify their transactions as hedging and non-hedging.

In other words, ESMA judged that it is impossible for regulators to distinguish firms’ hedging derivatives from its speculative ones. Given these difficulties, just a few months ago ESMA recommended jettisoning the entire mechanism that it now proposes to use to determine whether commodity firms are exempt from MiFID, and the associated capital and clearing requirements.

Makes perfect sense. In some universe.*

At the very least the ESMA plan will impose a huge compliance burden on firms who will have to justify their categorizations of derivatives positions as hedges or no. Given the complexities of risk management (e.g., managing risk on a portfolio basis means that saying what trade is a hedge is difficult, if not impossible, the rapid and frequent adjustments of positions inherent in most trading operations, etc.) this will be a nightmare.

So the good news is: You can get an exemption from capital and clearing requirments! Yay!

The bad news is: The entity proposing the exemption says that the process for getting the exemption is unworkable, and you’ll have not just a compliance headache, but a compliance migraine.

So at the very same time that the financial travails of a big commodity firm cast serious doubt on the systemic riskiness of these firms, European regulators advance regulations intended to fix this (non-existent) problem, and are doing so in a way that they themselves have cast serious doubt on.

Put differently: regulation is confronting reality in the commodity markets at this very moment, and reality is coming off second best.

* It also hardly inspires confidence that ESMA fails basic arithmetic. Note that the threshold in oil is 3 percent, then consider this from its Briefing on Non-Financial Topics: “If a firm’s speculative trading activity is less than 50% of its total trading, it may be MiFID II exempt providing its market share is less than 20% of each threshold in the market share test e.g. 0.8% for metals, 0.3% for oil etc.” Um, last time I checked .2 x 3%=0.6%, not 0.3%.


Print Friendly

July 21, 2015

The Fifth Year of the Frankendodd Life Sentence

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,Financial crisis,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:52 pm

Today is Frankendodd’s fifth birthday. Hardly time for celebration. It is probably more appropriate to say that this is the fifth year in the Frankendodd life sentence.

So where do we stand?

The clearing mandate is in force, and a large fraction of derivatives, especially interest rate and credit index derivatives are cleared. This was intended to reduce systemic risk, and as I’ve written since before the law was passed and signed, this was a chimerical goal. Indeed, in my view the systemic risk effects of the mandate are at best a push (merely shifting around the source of systemic risk), and at worse the net effects of the mandate are negative.

Belatedly regulators are coming around to the recognition of the risks posed by CCPs. They understand that CCPs have concentrated risk, and hence the failure of one of these entities would be catastrophic. So there is a frenzy of activity to try to make CCPs less likely to fail, and to ensure their rapid recovery in the event of problems. Janet Yellen has spoken on the subject, as has the head of the Office of Financial Research, Robert Dudley of the NY Fed, and numerous European regulators. Efforts are underway in the US, Europe, and Asia to increase CCP resources, and craft recovery and resolution procedures.

This is an improvement, I guess, over the KoolAid quaffing enthusiasm for the curative effects of CCPs that virtually all regulators indulged in post-crisis. But it distinctly reminds me of people madly sewing parachutes after the rather dodgy plane has taken off.

Further, these efforts miss a very major point. The main source of systemic risk from the clearing mandate derives from the huge liquidity strains that clearing (notably variation margin on a rigid time schedule) will create when the market is stressed. There has been some attention to ensuring CCPs have access to liquidity in the event of a default, but that’s not the real issue either. The real issue is funding large margin calls during a crisis.

Moreover, as I’ve also discussed, efforts to make CCPs more resilient can increase pressures elsewhere in the financial system (the “levee effect.”) Relatedly, regulators have not fully come to grips with the redistributive aspects of clearing–including in particular how netting, which they adore, can just relocate systemic risks.

I therefore stand by my prediction that a regulation-inflated clearing system will the source of the next systemic crisis.

Moving on, I called the SEF mandate the worst of Dodd-Frank. In the US, the majority of swap trades are done on SEFs, though mainly through RFQs rather than the central limit order books that Barney and Co. dreamed about in 2010.

There was never a remotely plausible systemic risk reducing rationale for the SEF mandate. Hence, if SEFs are inefficient ways to execute transactions, the mandate is all pain, no gain. As an indication of that this is indeed the case, note that virtually all European banks and end users stopped trading Euro-denominated swaps with US counterparties exactly when the mandate kicked in. The swaps mandate was too onerous, and anyone who could escape it did.

In a piece in Risk, I referred to the Made Available to Trade part of the SEF mandate the worst of the worst of Dodd-Frank. It made no sense to force all market participants to trade a particular kind of swap on SEFs just because one SEF decided to list it. Apparently that realization is slowly sinking in. The CFTC recently held a meeting on the MAT issue, and it seems as if there is a good chance that the CFTC will eventually determine what has to be traded on SEFs.

It is an indication of my loathing for MAT as it currently exists that I consider that an improvement.

Still moving on, Frankendodd was intended to reduce concentration and interconnectedness in the financial system. The actual result cannot really be called a mere unintended consequence: it was the exact opposite of the intended effect. Completely predictably (and predicted) the huge regulatory overhead increased concentration rather than reduced it. This is particularly true with respect to clearing. Gary Gensler’s dream of letting a thousand clearing firms bloom has turned into a nightmare, in which the clearing business is concentrated in a handful of big financial institutions, exacerbating too big to fail problems. And clearing has turned out to be the Mother of All Interconnections, because every big financial institution is connected to all big CCPs, and because pretty much everyone has to funnel the bulk of their derivatives trades through clearinghouses.

I could go on. Let me just re-iterate another risk of Frankendodd: standardization–the regulators’ fetish–is  a major source of systemic risk. Monocultures are particularly vulnerable to catastrophic failure, and the international regulatory standardization that was birthed in Pittsburg in 2009, and enacted in Frankendodd and MiFID and Emir, has created a regulatory monoculture. Some are grasping the implications of this. But too few, and not the right people.

I’ve focused here on the sins of commission. But there are also the sins of omission. Frankendodd did nothing about the Fannie and Freddie monster, which is coming back from the dead. F&F was a real systemic risk, but the same political dynamic that fed it in the 1990s and pre-2008 is at work again. Get ready for a repeat.

Frankendodd should have just focused on raising capital requirements for banks and other financial institutions with liquidity and maturity mismatches, and driven a stake through Fannie and Freddie. Instead, it sought to impose a detailed engineered solution on an emergent order. This inevitably ends badly.

So maybe it would be more accurate to say that we’re in our fifth year on death row. Someday the warden will come knocking.

Print Friendly

July 2, 2015

See You In the Funny Papers

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges — The Professor @ 6:01 pm

Here’s a first. I appear in a comic strip history of the CME-ICE rivalry in Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Quite the likeness!

Other than the fact that I appeared at all, the most amusing part of the, er, article, is the panel depicting CME’s Terry Duffy getting the news that ICE was making a rival bid for CBOT via a note slipped under his hotel room door at the FIA at Boca at 0600. I had eaten dinner with Duffy and CME CEO Craig Donohue the night before. They were in a little better mood then than they were the next day.

Bloomberg’s Matt Leising called me at about 0630 to ask me about the development. That led to an appearance on Bloomberg TV, where I was interviewed right before Jeff Sprecher. He watched me give the interview, and was not pleased with my prediction that CME would eventually prevail, but have to pay a lot more: I saw him say to the woman next to him (who I later found out was his wife, Kelly Loeffler) “who is this guy?” That was exactly how it worked out though, and apparently there were no hard feelings because Sprecher spoke at a conference I organized at UH a couple of years later. Either that, or he didn’t connect me with “this guy.”

Evenhanded guy that I am, I invited Craig Donohue to speak at a conference a year or two after that. His speech was interrupted by some Occupy types (remember them?), whom my tiger of an assistant Avani and I bodily shoved out of the room while the rest of the audience sat in stunned silence (not knowing what was going on).

So yeah. My involvement with CME and ICE sometimes does sound like something out of the funny pages. Now it’s official.

Print Friendly

April 11, 2015

The Risks of Clearing Finally Dawn on Tarullo: Better Late Than Never, I Guess

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 10:11 pm

In October, 2011 I was in a group of academics invited to meet the Board of Governors of the Fed to discuss our research. The theme was network industries, and I was to make a presentation on the network aspects of clearing and its implications for systemic risk.

My most vivid memory of the meeting has little to do with my presentation. Instead, it relates to Ben Bernanke, who sat facing me, directly across the massive boardroom table. Bernanke obviously had a headache. He was rubbing his temples, and he asked a staffer to bring him a cold can of Diet Mountain Dew, which he held against his forehead while closing his eyes. Figuring that a Bernanke headache would portend bad financial news, I was sorely tempted to excuse myself to call my broker to sell the hell out of the S&P.

Sitting next to me was Governor Daniel Tarullo. Truth be told, I was not impressed by his questions, which seemed superficial, or his mien, which was rather brusque, not to say grouchy.

He was definitely not sympathetic to my warning about the potential systemic risks of clearing: he made some skeptical, and in fact dismissive, comments. It was quite evident that he was a believer in clearing mandates.

It appears that Tarullo is still struggling with the idea that CCPs are a risk, but at least he’s open to the possibility:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and BlackRock Inc. have argued for years that a key response to the last financial crisis could help fuel the next one. [What? No mention of SWP? I was way ahead of them!] Global regulators are starting to heed their warnings.

At issue is the role of clearinghouses — platforms that regulators turned to following the 2008 meltdown to shed more light on the $700 trillion swaps market. A pivotal goal was ensuring that losses at one bank don’t imperil a wide swath of companies, and the broader economy.

Now, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo is quizzing Wall Street after big lenders and asset managers said clearinghouses pose their own threats, said three people with knowledge of the discussions who weren’t authorized to speak publicly. Among the concerns raised by financial firms: Relying on clearinghouses shifts risk to just a handful of entities, and the collapse of one could lead to uncapped losses for banks.

. . . .

Tarullo, the Fed’s point man on financial regulation and oversight, has publicly conceded that it’s hard for banks to determine their own market risks if they can’t evaluate how badly they would be hit by the failure of a clearinghouse. It’s “worth considering” whether clearinghouses have enough funds to handle major defaults, he said in a Jan. 30 speech.

Tarullo’s speech is here. Although he is still obviously a clearing fan, at least he is starting to recognize some of the problems. In particular, he acknowledges that it necessary to consider the interaction between CCPs and the broader financial system. Though I must say that since he mentions multilateral netting as the primary reason why CCPs contribute to financial stability, and margins as the second, it’s painfully evident that he doesn’t grasp the fundamental nature of clearing. In the first instance, netting and collateral just redistribute losses, and it is not clear that this redistribution enhances stability. In the second instance, although he acknowledges the problems with margin pro cyclicality, he doesn’t explicitly recognize the strains that large margin flows put on liquidity supply, and the destabilizing effect of these strains.

So it’s a start, but there’s a long way to go.

Tarullo pays most attention to the implications of CCP failure, and to measures to reduce the likelihood of this failure. Yes, failure of a large CCP would be catastrophic, but as I’ve oft written, the measures designed to save them can be catastrophic too.

Tarullo would be well-advised to read this short piece by Michael Beaton, which summarizes many of the issues quite well. The last few paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

In general, I think what we need to take away from all of this is that systemic risk can be transferred – it’s arguable whether or not it can be reduced – but it certainly can’t be eliminated, and the clearing model that we are working towards is a hub and spoke which concentrates risk on a very, very small number of names.

A decentralised network is arguably stronger than a hub and spoke model, mainly because open systems are generally regarded as more robust than closed ones. The latter is what the clearing model operates on and you have that single, glaring point of failure, and there’s really no escape from that.

So, going back to the original questions – do I think the proposals are enough?  I think it goes a long way, but fundamentally I don’t think it will ever resolve the problem of ‘too big to fail’.  I’m just not convinced it’s a problem that is capable of resolution. [Emphasis added.]

Exactly. (The comparison of open vs. closed systems is particularly important.)

Since clearing mandates create their own systemic risks, the Fed, and other central banks, and other macroprudential regulators, must grasp the nettle and determine what central bank support will be extended to CCPs in a crisis. Greenspan extemporized a response in the Crash of ’87, and it worked. But the task will be orders of magnitude greater in the next crisis, given the massively increased scope of clearing. It’s good that Tarullo and the Fed are starting to address these issues, but the mandates are almost 5 years old and too little progress has been made. Faster, please.


Print Friendly

April 3, 2015

BATS in the OCC’s Belfry?, or The Perils of Natural Monopoly Regulation, CCP Edition

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,Financial crisis,Regulation — The Professor @ 11:13 am

The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) and the exchanges that own it (Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, International Securities Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca) are embroiled in a dispute with virtually everyone else in the options business regarding its new capital plan. Pursuant to its designation as a “Systemically Important Financial Market Utility” (“SIFMU”) under Frankendodd, OCC was required to boost capital from $25 million to nearly $250 million. Part of this will be obtained through retained earnings, with an additional $150 million via a capital injection from the four owner-exchanges. In addition, CBOE et al promise to inject up to $117 million in the event of “unexpected losses”, which would be most likely to occur during a financial crisis.

In return, the owner-exchanges receive in essence preferred stock, which pays a dividend in perpetuity. The exact amount of the dividend is not known publicly, but those objecting to the plan (including BATS and KCG) claim that it could be as much as 16-19 pct, at least in the first few years of the plan’s operation.

Non-owner exchanges like BATS and market users like KCG are furious, claiming that the the capital plan allows OCC’s owners to “monetize” the rents accruing to its status as the monopoly clearer for options transactions in the US. They believe that OCC will pay for the dividend by charging super competitive fees that will impair competition among exchanges (advantaging the owner exchanges over the non-owners) and will burden market users.

This is a difficult issue, the nature of OCC. Here are some thoughts:

1. OCC is a regulated monopoly, and arguably a natural monopoly.This creates the traditional conflict between the owners of the utility and its customers, which include other exchanges that aren’t owners (like BATS) and clearing firms and market users (like KCG). This is in many ways very similar to a dispute between a traditional electric utility and its ratepayers heard before a state utility commission, with the exception that this is before the SEC.

2. Like a traditional are case involving a regulated utility, the dispute here is over what is a fair rate of return on capital. BATS and KCG are objecting to the rate of return the 4 exchange owners of OCC are being promised for their capital contribution, and the process by which the SEC approved this rate of return.

3. It is particularly challenging to determine a “fair” rate of return on this capital because of the unique risks that the OCC exchanges are assuming. This capital is at risk of taking a big hit, and the owner-exchanges are potentially obligated to make additional capital contributions, during periods of financial crisis (the “dire circumstances”) referred to in BATS’s letter to the SEC. This tends to make this capital very expensive, and it should therefore earn a relatively high rate of return (high dividend). Capital that has bad returns when the market is doing poorly overall-“high beta”, if you will-is expensive capital. The type of capital being provided is fraught with wrong-way risk: it is likely to take a hit precisely when the capital suppliers are least able to afford it. Determining how much of a risk premium is warranted is a challenge, because of the exceptional nature of the risk. In essence, the exchanges are assuming tail risk, i.e., the risk of exceptional events, and it is inherently difficult to evaluate and price these risks.

4. The other exchanges and firms like KCG benefit from the risk bearing capital supplied by the owner exchanges. Otherwise, they would have to bear the risk. But of course they would like to underpay for this benefit, just as the owner exchanges might want to overcharge for it.

5. In other words, this situation is tailor made for disputes. Monopoly rate setting to determine fair rates and a fair rate of return on capital with very unusual and hard to evaluate risks.

6. The fears about the effects of pricing on inter-exchange competition in execution service are misdirected. Yes, it is possible that the owner exchanges will capture monopoly rents accruing to the OCC’s dominant position, but traditional “one monopoly rent” analysis implies that they don’t have an incentive to use OCC pricing power to advantage their competitive position in execution services. Indeed, the opposite is true.

This also highlights some organization, ownership and governance issues that I addressed in my research on exchanges that culminated in my 2000 JLE piece. Exchanges (and clearinghouses) have market power, and serve disparate and heterogeneous interests. They can use pricing to redistribute rents (which accrue in part due to market power) from one group of intermediaries to another. Not-for-profit status and mutual ownership (having the exchange or CCP operate as a non-profit “utility” serving disparate intermediary-owners is a way of reducing rent seeking and mitigating the use of pricing to redistribute rents.

But non-profit, mutual organization comes at a cost. It requires highly participative, committee-heavy governance that slows decision making and often creates gridlock that makes it difficult for the exchanges/CCPs to respond to technology, regulatory, or market shocks. (Look at the CBT in the 1990s and early-2000s if you want an example.) If everybody has a voice and a vote, it is very difficult to get things done.

In sum, “financial market utility” pricing and governance is inherently messy and controversial.  It has all of the problems associated with public utility regulation, and then some. The problems are particularly daunting when it comes to capitalizing, allocating and pricing the systemic and wrong way risks that CCPs bear. Given these complexities, I won’t venture an opinion here, except to say that (a) I can see both sides of the argument here, and (b) this ain’t going away anytime soon.

Print Friendly

March 30, 2015

An Elegant Answer to the Wrong Question (or an Incomplete One)

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Financial crisis,Regulation — The Professor @ 1:14 pm

Rodney Garrett and Peter Zimmerman of the NY Fed have produced a paper studying the effect of clearing on derivatives counterparty risk exposures. It is basically an extension of the Duffle-Zhu paper from a few years ago. It studies more realistic networks and a more diverse set of scenarios than D-Z. It demonstrates that with a variety of network structures, clearing actually reduces netting efficiency and increases counterpart risk exposures. This is especially true with “scale free” or “core-periphery” networks, which are more realistic representations of actual derivatives markets than the all-to-all structure in D-Z. They show that when the system relies on relatively few crucial nodes, as is the case in most dealer structures, clearing reduces netting efficiency. This, as Garrett and Zimmerman note, could explain why clearing has not been adopted voluntarily. It also raises doubts about the advisability of clearing mandates, inasmuch as the alleged benefit of clearing is a reduction in counterparty credit exposures.

A few comments. The results, taken on their own terms, make sense. In particular, networks connecting dealers and customers via derivatives transactions, are endogenous. And although network structures are not necessarily efficient due to network externalities and path dependence, there are forces that lead to minimizing credit exposures. thus, although it would be Panglossian to assert that existing structures minimize these exposures, it should not be surprising that interventions that lead to dramatic alterations to networks increase counterparty risk exposures as existing networks are configured at least in part to reduce these exposures.

More importantly, though, there is the issue of whether counterparty risk exposure in derivatives transactions is the proper metric to evaluate the effect of clearing mandates. As I have noted for  years (as has Mark Roe), when participants in derivatives transactions have other liabilities, changes in netting efficiency in derivatives primarily redistribute wealth to or from one group of creditors (derivatives counteparties) from or to other creditors (e.g., unsecured lenders, commercial paper purchasers, deposit insurers). Netting and offset essentially privilege the creditors that can use them, at the expense of others who cannot. So telling me policy A reduces counterparty risk exposures by netting provides me very little information about the systemic effects of the policy. To understand the systemic effects, you need to understand the distributive effects across the full set of creditors impacted by the change in derivatives netting efficiency induced by the policy–and that would be every creditor of derivatives market participants. This paper, like all others in the area, does not do that.

Put another way. Papers in this literature say little about systemic risk because they only analyze a piece of the system. The derivatives-centric approach is of little value in assessing systemic risk. To analyze systemic risk, you need to analyze the system, not a piece of it.

What’s more, shuffling around credit risk is probably not the most important effect of clearing mandates, even though it receives the vast bulk of the attention. As I’ve written repeatedly in the past, including here, clearing reduces credit risk by increasing liquidity risk, most notably, through variation margining which results in the need to obtain cash in a hurry to meet margin calls, which can be large when there are large market shocks. The expansion of clearing to OTC markets which dwarf listed derivatives potentially leads to orders-of-magnitude increases in liquidity needs.

It is these liquidity demands which create huge potential systemic risks. Financial crises are usually liquidity crises: mechanisms such as clearing increase demands for liquidity in stressed market conditions, and do so in a way that increases the rigidity and tightness of the coupling in the financial system. This is extremely dangerous. Tight coupling in particular is associated with system failure in a variety of real world systems including both financial and non-financial systems.

Indeed, all of the attempts to make CCPs invulnerable all tend to exacerbate these problems. This raises the possibility that CCPs could be bastions surviving in the midst of a completely rubbled financial system.

In sum, papers like the Garrett-Zimmerman work are very elegant and technically sophisticated, and help answer a question: Does clearing reduce derivatives counterparty risk exposures? But all the elegance and technical sophistication is likely for naught given that the question is the wrong question, or a very incomplete one.

Print Friendly

February 4, 2015

Turn Out the Lights, The Party’s Over

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,History — The Professor @ 8:12 pm

What party, you ask? The one with the mosh pit at LaSalle and Jackson in Chicago.  The one held in the building that’s in the background image of this page.

That’s right. Today the CME Group announced it was ending floor trading of futures (with the exception of the S&P 500) in Chicago and New York. Floor trading of options will continue.

As a Chicagoan who knew the floor in its glory days, this is a sad day. The floor was an amazing place. (Even though the floors will remain open until July, the past tense is appropriate in that sentence.)  A seemingly chaotic place full of shouting and gesticulating men (and yes, it was an overwhelmingly male place). Despite the chaos, it was an extraordinarily efficient way to buy and sell futures. In the bond pit in the 80s and 90s, $100,000,000 notional could be bought in sold with a shout and a wave. Over and over and over.

The economics of the pits were fascinating, but the sociology was as well. They were truly little societies. There were the exchange rules that were in the book, and there were the rules not written in any book that you adhered to, or else. Face-to-face interactions day after day over periods of years created a unique dynamic and a unique culture with its own norms and hierarchies and rituals. And soon it will be but a memory.

Even though I am wistful at the passing of this remarkable institution, I was ahead of the curve in predicting its eventual demise. I worked at an FCM in 1986, when the CME, CBT, and Reuters announced the initial Globex initiative. This got me interested in electronic trading, and when I became an academic a few years later, I researched the subject. In 1994 I wrote one of the early papers documenting that electronic markets could be as liquid and deep as floor-based markets, and I conjectured that parity in liquidity and superiority in speed and cost of access would result in the ultimate victory of computers over the floor. The collective response in the industry was scorn: everyone knew the floor was more liquid, and always would be. The information environment on the floor could never be duplicated on the screen, they said. This view was epitomized by the CEO of LIFFE, Daniel Hodgson, who ridiculed me in the FT as an ivory tower academic.

The first sign that the floor’s days were numbered occurred in 1998, when computerized Eurex wrested the Bund futures contract from LIFFE. (Eurex used my research as part of its marketing push.) LIFFE suffered a near death experience, barely surviving by shutting the floor and going fully electronic. (Mr. Hodgson was shown the door, and I resisted the temptation of sending him a certain FT clipping.)

Computerized trading was only slowly making inroads in the US at the time, in part because the incumbent exchanges resisted its operation during regular floor trading hours. But the fear of the machines was palpable by the mid-1990s. The CBT built its massive trading floor in 1997 in part because the members believed that if it spent so much on a new building the exchange couldn’t afford to render it useless by going electronic. Ironic that a group of traders who lived and breathed real world economics would fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy, and be blind to the gales of competition and creative destruction.

The floor continued to thrive, but inexorably the machines gained on it. By the early-2000s electronic volumes exceeded floor volumes for most contracts, especially in the financials. By the end of the first decade of the millennium, the floors were almost vacant. I remember going to the crude oil pit in NY in early-2009, and where once well over 100 traders stood, engaged in frenzied buying and selling, now a handful of guys sat on the steps of the pit, reading the Post and the Daily News.

When the CME demutualized, and when it acquired CBT and NYMEX, it made commitments to keep the floors open for some period of time. But the commitments were not in perpetuity, and declining floor volumes made it evident that eventually the day would come that the CME would shut down the floors.

Today was that day.

This was inevitable, but in the 80s and 90s the floor trading community, and the futures business generally, couldn’t possibly imagine that machines could ever do what they did. But the technology of the floor was essentially static. Yes, the technology of getting orders to the pit evolved along with telecommunications, but once the orders got there, they were executed in the same way that they had been since 1864 or so.* That execution technology was highly evolved and efficient, but static. In the meantime, Moore’s Law and innovation in hardware, software, and communications technology made electronic trading faster and smarter. Electronic trading lacked some of the information that could be gleaned looking in the eyes of the guy standing across the pit, or knowing who was bidding or offering, but it made accessible to traders vast sources of disparate information that was impossible to absorb on the floor. By the late-00s, HFT essentially computerized what was in locals’ heads, and did it faster with more information and fewer errors and less emotion. Guys that were all about competition were displaced by the competition of a more efficient technology.

Floor trading will live on for a while, in the options pits. Combination trades in options are complex in ways that there are efficiencies in doing them on the floor. But eventually machines will master that too. ICE closed its options pits a couple of years ago (four years after it closed its futures pits), and one day the CME will do so too.

The news of the CME announcement reminded me of something that happened almost exactly 10 years ago, 21 February 2005. Around that time, the management of  the International Petroleum Exchange was discussing the closure of the floor. (It decided to do so on 7 March.) Floor traders were very anxious about their future. Totally oblivious to this, Greenpeace decided to mount a protest on the IPE floor to commemorate the Kyoto Protocol. Bad decision. Bad timing. The barrow boys of the London floors, already in a sour mood, didn’t take kindly to this invasion, and mayhem ensued. Punches were thrown. Bones were broken. Furniture was thrown. There was much comedy:

“The violence was instant,” reported one aggrieved recipient of a rain of blows to the head. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

You can’t make that up.

From what I understand, the response was much more subdued in Chicago and New York today. But then again, Occupy or GMO protesters didn’t attempt to sally onto the floor to flog their causes. If they had, they just might have caught a flogging like the enviros did in London a decade back.

Being of a historical bent, I will look back on the floors with fascination. I am grateful to have known them personally, and to have known many who trod the boards in the pit in their colorful jackets, shouting themselves hoarse and at constant risk of being stabbed in the neck with a pencil wielded by a hyperactive peer.

Today is a good day to watch Floored or The Pit. Or even play a game of Pit. The films will give you something of a feel, but just a bit.

2015. The year Chicago lost Ernie Banks and the floor. But life moves on. Machines do not have the color of the floor, but they perform the markets’ vital functions more efficiently now. And not everything has changed in Chicago. The Cubs are still horrible.

*The exact beginning of floor trading on the CBT is unknown. The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago was formed in 1848, but futures trading proper probably did not begin until the Civil War. Sometime in the 1862-1864 period floor trading as we know it today-or should I say knew it?-developed. The first formal trading rules were promulgated in 1867. If you look at pictures from the 19th century or early-20th century, other than the clothes things don’t look much different than they did in the 1980s or 1990s. Electronic boards replaced chalk boards, but other than that, things look very similar.

Print Friendly

December 6, 2014

Hit the Road, State Street

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Financial crisis,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 11:51 pm

Following the lead of Bank of New York, State Street announced that it is exiting the swaps clearing business:

State Street (STT) Corp. is closing down its swaps business after clients said new regulations steered them away for using the products.

The bank will shutter its U.S. business for clearing swaps early next year and will shelve plans to start a similar operation in Europe, Anne McNally, a spokeswoman for the Boston-based company, said in an e-mail statement today.

State Street will instead focus on trading other types of derivatives, particularly more traditional exchange-traded futures, that have not been subject to broad new regulations imposed since the 2008 financial crisis.

“Due to market and regulatory factors, our clients have largely evolved their investment strategies towards the use of futures and away from” over-the-counter derivatives, McNally said in the statement.

From even before Frankendodd was passed, I predicted that the swap clearing firm business would be highly concentrated and dominated by the major dealers who had dominated the OTC market. Indeed, I argued that the regulatory overhead created by Frankendodd would actually tend to increase scale economies and make the clearing services business more concentrated and connected.

But Gensler, with the vocal support of BNY, State Street, and Ken Griffen of Citadel-and also MF Global-argued that there was a clearing cabal of dealer firms that was was creating unnecessary barriers to entry into clearing. BNY and State Street claimed that the dealers were forcing ICE Clear to require members to have excessively large amounts of capital, an this prevented them from becoming clearing members. Tear down those walls, and doughty entrants like BNY and State Street and Newedge and others would make the clearing business far more competitive.

This view was channeled in a NY Times story written by Louise Story almost exactly four years ago: I criticized Story’s story pretty harshly. Reflecting this view, the CFTC rules substantially eased the capital requirements and other requirements to become clearing members. Gensler, BNY, STT, etc., thought that this would lead to a much less concentrated, much more competitive clearing business.

But this was to misunderstand the economics of clearing, clearing firm scale and scope economies, and how the complicated regulatory structure CFTC put in place exacerbated these scale economies. Even futures clearing (which is substantially simpler than swaps clearing) has become much more concentrated over the years. Only the truly huge can survive.

BNY and State Street tried, and failed. They couldn’t overcome their inadequate scale even though they could offer complementary collateral management and custodial services. They were just too small.

State Street announced that it was going to focus on futures clearing, but even here it faces problems. It just lost its biggest customer (Pimco). Moreover, there are scope economies between futures clearing and swap clearing. State Street will be at a disadvantage relative to say Goldman, which can offer customers who trade both swaps and futures one stop shopping for clearing services at lower cost because of these scope economies.

So much for clearing mandates making the financial markets less concentrated and less interconnected: instead we (predictably and predicted) have a derivatives marketplace dominated by a small number of CCPs each dominated by a small number of large bank clearing members who are members of all major CCPs, which makes entire world clearing space concentrated and highly interconnected. That anybody thought the post-crisis regulations would reduce concentration and interconnections in swaps markets is illuminating. It demonstrates that those primarily responsible for implementing Frankendodd didn’t really understand the economics of what they were attempting to regulate, and as a result, they didn’t really know what they were doing.  They thought they were striking a blow against too big to fail and a collusive dealer oligopoly. They were wrong, and State Street’s abandonment of its swaps clearing effort is just further proof of how wrong they were.

Print Friendly

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress