Streetwise Professor

August 17, 2014

This Never Happens, Right?: Regulators Push a Flawed Solution

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 6:06 pm

Regulators are pushing ISDA and derivatives market participants really hard to incorporate a stay on derivatives trades of failing SIFIs. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, this is a problem if bankruptcy law involving derivatives is not changed because the prospect of having contracts stayed, and thus the right of termination abridged, could lead counterparties to run from a weak counterparty before it actually defaults. This is possible if derivatives remain immune from fraudulent conveyance or preference claims.

Silla Brush, who co-wrote an article about the issue in Bloomberg, asked me a good question via Twitter: why should derivatives counterparties run, if they are confident that their positions with the failing bank will be transferred to a solvent one during the resolution process?

I didn’t think of the answer on the fly, but upon reflection it’s pretty clear. If counterparties were so confident that such a transfer will occur, a stay would be unnecessary: they would not terminate their contracts, but would breathe a sigh of relief and wait patiently while the transfer takes place.

If regulators think a stay is necessary, it is because they fear that counterparties would prefer to terminate their contracts than await their fate in a resolution.

So a stay is either a superfluous addition to the resolution process, or imposes costs on derivatives counterparties who lack confidence in that process.

If this is true, the logic I laid out before goes through. If you impose a stay, if market participants would prefer to terminate rather than live with the outcome of a resolution process, they have an incentive to run a failing bank, and find a way to get out of their derivatives positions and recover their collateral.

This can actually precipitate the failure of a weak bank.

I say again: constraining the actions of derivatives counterparties at the time of default can have perverse effects if their actions prior to default are not constrained.

This means that you need to fix bankruptcy rules regarding derivatives in a holistic way. And this is precisely the problem. Despairing at their ability to achieve a coherent, systematic fix of bankruptcy law in the present political environment, regulators are trying to implement piecemeal workarounds. But piecemeal workarounds create more problems than they correct.

But of course, the regulators pressing for this are pretty much the same people who rushed clearing mandates and other aspects of Frankendodd into effect without thinking through how things would work in practice.

Print Friendly

Nationalize the Clearinghouses?

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 3:48 pm

Stephen Lubben has garnered a lot of attention with his recent paper “Nationalize the Clearinghouses.” Don’t get nervous, CME, ICE, LCH: he doesn’t mean now, but in the event of your failure.

A few brief comments.

First, I agree-obviously, since I’ve been saying this going back to the 90s-that the failure of a big CCP would be a catastrophic systemic event, and that a failure is a set of positive measure. Thus, planning for this contingency is essential. Second, I further agree that establishing a procedure that lays out in advance what will be done upon the failure of a CCP is vital, and that leaving things to be handled in an ad hoc way at the time of failure is a recipe for disaster (in large part because how market participants would respond to the uncertainty when a CCP teeters on the brink). Third, it is evident that CCPs do not fit into the recovery and resolution schemes established for banks under Frankendodd and EMIR. CCPs are very different from banks, and a recovery or resolution mechanism designed for banks would be a bad, bad fit for clearers.

Given all this, temporary nationalization, with a pre-established procedure for subsequent privatization, is reasonable. This would ensure continuity of operations of a CCP, which is essential.

It’s important not to exaggerate the benefits of this, however. Stephen states: nationalization “should provide stakeholders in the clearinghouses with strong incentives to oversee the clearinghouse’s management, and avoid such a fate.” I don’t think that the ex ante efficiency effects of nationalization will be that large. After all, nationalization would occur only after the equity of the CCP (which is pretty small to begin with) is wiped out, and the default fund plus additional assessments have been blown through. Shooting/nationalizing a corpse doesn’t have much of an incentive effect on the living ex ante.

Stephen recommends that upon nationalization that CCP memberships be canceled. This is superfluous, given the setup of CCPs. Many CCPs require members to meet an assessment call up to the amount of the original contribution to the default fund. Once they have met that call, they can resign from the CCP: that’s when the CCP gives up the ghost. Thus, a CCP fails when members exercise their option to check out. There are no memberships to cancel in a failed CCP.

Lubben recommends that there be an “expectation of member participation in the recapitalization of the clearinghouse, once that becomes systemically viable.” In effect, this involves the creation of a near unlimited liability regime for CCP members. The existing regime (which involves assessment rights, typically capped at the original default fund contribution amount) goes beyond traditional limited liability, but not all the way to a Lloyds of London-like unlimited liability regime. Telling members that they will be “expected” to recapitalize a CCP (which has very Don Corleone-esque overtones) essentially means that membership in a CCP requires a bank/FCM to undertake an unlimited exposure, and to provide capital at times they are likely to be very stressed.

This is problematic in the event, and ex ante.

Stephen qualifies the recapitalization obligation (excuse me, “expectation”) with “once that becomes systemically viable.” Well, that could be a helluva long time, given that the failure of a CCP will be triggered by the failure of 2 or more systemically important financial institutions. (And let’s not forget that given the fact that FCMs are members of multiple clearinghouses, multiple simultaneous failures of CCPs is a very real possibility: indeed, there is a huge correlation risk here, meaning that surviving members are likely to be expected to re-capitalize multiple CCPs.) Thus, even if the government keeps a CCP from failing via nationalization, the entities that it expects to recapitalize the seized clearinghouse will will almost certainly be in dire straits themselves at this juncture. A realistic nationalization plan must therefore recognize that the government will be bearing counterparty risk for the CCP’s derivatives trades for some considerable period of time. Nationalization is not free.

Ex ante, two problems arise. First, the prospect of unlimited liability will make banks very reluctant to become members of CCPs. Nationalization plus a recapitalization obligation is the wrong-way risk from hell: banks will be expected to pony up capital precisely when they are in desperate straits. My friend Blivy jokingly asked whether there will soon be more CCPs than clearing firms. An “expectation” of recapitalizing a nationalized CCP is likely to make that a reality, rather than a joke.

Second, the nationalization scheme creates a moral hazard. Users of CCPs (i.e., those trading cleared derivatives) will figure that they will be made whole in the event of a failure: the government and eventually the (coerced) banks will make the creditors of the CCP whole. They thus have less incentive to monitor a CCP or the clearing members.

Thus, other issues have to be grappled with. Specifically, should there be “bail-ins” of the creditors of a failed CCP, most notably through variation margin haircutting? Or should there be initial margin haircutting, which would intensify the incentives to monitor (as well as spread the default risk more broadly, and not force it disproportionately on those receiving VM payments, who are  likely to be hedgers) ? Hard questions, but ones that need to be addressed.

It is good to see that serious people like Stephen are now giving serious consideration to this issue. It is unfortunate that the people responsible for mandating clearing didn’t give these issues serious consideration when rushing to pass Frankendodd and EMIR.

Again: legislate in haste, repent at leisure.

 

Print Friendly

July 11, 2014

25 Years Ago Today Ferruzzi Created the Streetwise Professor

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,HFT,History,Regulation — The Professor @ 9:03 am

Today is the 25th anniversary of the most important event in my professional life. On 11 July, 1989, the Chicago Board of Trade issued an Emergency Order requiring all firms with positions in July 1989 soybean futures in excess of the speculative limit to reduce those positions to the limit over five business days in a pro rata fashion (i.e., 20 percent per day, or faster). Only one firm was impacted by the order, Italian conglomerate Ferruzzi, SA.

Ferruzzi was in the midst of an attempt to corner the market, as it had done in May, 1989. The EO resulted in a sharp drop in soybean futures prices and a jump in the basis: for instance, by the time the contract went off the board on 20 July, the basis at NOLA had gone from zero to about 50 cents, by far the largest jump in that relationship in the historical record.

The EO set off a flurry of legal action. Ferruzzi tried to obtain an injunction against the CBT. Subsequently, farmers (some of whom had dumped truckloads of beans at the door of the CBT) sued the exchange. Moreover, a class action against Ferruzzi was also filed. These cases took years to wend their ways through the legal system. The farmer litigation (in the form of Sanner v. CBT) wasn’t decided (in favor of the CBT) until the fall of 2002. The case against Ferruzzi lasted somewhat less time, but still didn’t settle until 2006.

I was involved as an expert in both cases. Why?

Well, pretty much everything in my professional career post-1990 is connected to the Ferruzzi corner and CBT EO, in a knee-bone-connected-to-the-thigh-bone kind of way.

The CBT took a lot of heat for the EO. My senior colleague, the late Roger Kormendi, convinced the exchange to fund an independent analysis of its grain and oilseed markets to attempt to identify changes that could prevent a recurrence of the episode. Roger came into my office at Michigan, and told me about the funding. Knowing that I had worked in the futures markets before, asked me to participate in the study. I said that I had only worked in financial futures, but I could learn about commodities, so I signed on: it sounded interesting, my current research was at something of a standstill, and I am always up for learning something new. I ended up doing about 90 percent of the work and getting 20 percent of the money :-P but it was well worth it, because of the dividends it paid in the subsequent quarter century. (Putting it that way makes me feel old. But this all happened when I was a small child. Really!)

The report I (mainly) wrote for the CBT turned into a book, Grain Futures Contracts: An Economic Appraisal. (Available on Amazon! Cheap! Buy two! I see exactly $0.00 of your generous purchases.) Moreover, I saw the connection between manipulation and industrial organization economics (which was my specialization in grad school): market power is a key concept in both. So I wrote several papers on market power manipulation, which turned into a book . (Also available on Amazon! And on Kindle: for some strange reason, it was one of the first books published on Kindle.)

The issue of manipulation led me to try to understand how it could best be prevented or deterred. This led me to research self-regulation, because self-regulation was often advanced as the best way to tackle manipulation. This research (and the anthropological field work I did working on the CBT study) made me aware that exchange governance played a crucial role, and that exchange  governance was intimately related to the fact that exchanges are non-profit firms. So of course I had to understand why exchanges were non-profits (which seemed weird given that those who trade on them are about as profit-driven as you can get), and why they were governed in the byzantine, committee-dominated way they were. Moreover, many advocates of self-regulation argued that competition forced exchanges to adopt efficient rules. Observing that exchanges in fact tended to be monopolies, I decided I needed to understand the economics of competition between execution venues in exchange markets. This caused me to write my papers on market macrostructure, which is still an active area of investigation: I am writing a book on that subject. This in turn produced many of the conclusions that I have drawn about HFT, RegNMS, etc.

Moreover, given that I concluded that self-regulation was in fact a poor way to address manipulation (because I found exchanges had poor incentives to do so), I examined whether government regulation or private legal action could do better. This resulted in my work on the efficiency of ex post deterrence of manipulation. My conclusions about the efficiency of ex post deterrence rested on my findings that manipulated prices could be distinguished reliably from competitive prices. This required me to understand the determinants of competitive prices, which led to my research on the dynamics of storable commodity prices that culminated in my 2011 book. (Now available in paperback on Amazon! Kindle too.)

In other words, pretty much everything in my CV traces back to Ferruzzi. Even the clearing-related research, which also has roots in the 1987 Crash, is due to Ferruzzi: I wouldn’t have been researching any derivatives-related topics otherwise.

My consulting work, and in particular my expert witness work, stems from Ferruzzi. The lead counsel in the class action against Ferruzzi came across Grain Futures Contracts in the CBT bookstore (yes, they had such a thing back in the day), and thought that I could help him as an expert. After some hesitation (attorneys being very risk averse, and hence reluctant to hire someone without testimonial experience) he hired me. The testimony went well, and that was the launching pad for my expert work.

I also did work helping to redesign the corn and soybean contracts at the CBT, and the canola contract in Winnipeg: these redesigned contracts (based on shipping receipts) are the ones traded today. Again, this work traces its lineage to Ferruzzi.

Hell, this was even my introduction to the conspiratorial craziness that often swirls around commodity markets. Check out this wild piece, which links Ferruzzi (“the Pope’s soybean company”) to Marc Rich, the Bushes, Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster, and several federal judges. You cannot make up this stuff. Well, you can, I guess, as a quick read will soon convince you.

I have other, even stranger connections to Hillary and Vince Foster which in a more indirect way also traces its way back to Ferruzzi. But that’s a story for another day.

There’s even a Russian connection. One of Ferruzzi’s BS cover stories for amassing a huge position was that it needed the beans to supply big export sales to the USSR. These sales were in fact fictitious.

Ferruzzi was a rather outlandish company that eventually collapsed in 1994. Like many Italian companies, it was leveraged out the wazoo. Moreover, it had become enmeshed in the Italian corruption/mob investigations of the early 1990s, and its chairman Raul Gardini, committed suicide in the midst of the scandal.

The traders who carried out the corners were located in stylish Paris, but they were real commodity cowboys of the old school. Learning about that was educational too.

To put things in a nutshell. Some crazy Italians, and English and American traders who worked for them, get the credit-or the blame-for creating the Streetwise Professor. Without them, God only knows what the hell I would have done for the last 25 years. But because of them, I raced down the rabbit hole of commodity markets. And man, have I seen some strange and interesting things on that trip. Hopefully I will see some more, and if I do, I’ll share them with you right here.

Print Friendly

July 1, 2014

What Gary Gensler, the Igor of Frankendodd, Hath Wrought

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Europe lately, and this gives a rather interesting perspective on US derivatives regulatory policy. (I’m in London now for Camp Alphaville.)

Specifically, on the efforts of Frankdodd’s Igor, Gary Gensler, to make US regulation extraterritorial (read: imperialist).

Things came to a head when the head of the CFTC’s Clearing and Risk  division, Ananda K. Radhakrishnan, said that ICE and LCH, both of which clear US-traded futures contracts out of the UK, could avoid cross-border issues arising from inconsistencies between EU and US regulation (relating mainly to collateral segregation rules) by moving to the US:

Striking a marked contrast with European regulators calling for a collaborative cross-border approach to regulation, a senior CFTC official said he was “tired” of providing exemptions, referring in particular to discrepancies between the US Dodd-Frank framework and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation on clearing futures and the protection of related client collateral.

“To me, the first response cannot be: ‘CFTC, you’ve got to provide an exemption’,” said Ananda Radhakrishnan, the director of the clearing and risk division at the CFTC.

Radhakrishnan singled out LCH.Clearnet and the InterContinental Exchange as two firms affected by the inconsistent regulatory frameworks on listed derivatives as a result of clearing US business through European-based derivatives clearing organisations (DCOs).

“ICE and LCH have a choice. They both have clearing organisations in the United States. If they move the clearing of these futures contracts… back to a US only DCO I believe this conflict doesn’t exist,” said Radhakrishnan.

“These two entities can engage in some self-help. If they do that, neither [regulator] will have to provide an exemption.”

It was not just what he said, but how he said it. The “I’m tired” rhetoric, and his general mien, was quite grating to Europeans.

The issue is whether the US will accept EU clearing rules as equivalent, and whether the EU will reciprocate. Things are pressing, because there is a December deadline for the EU to recognize US CCPs as equivalent. If this doesn’t happen, European banks that use a US CCP (e.g., Barclays holding a Eurodollar futures position cleared through the CME) will face a substantially increased capital charge on the cleared positions.

Right now there is a huge game of chicken going on between the EU and the US. In response to what Europe views as US obduracy, the Europeans approved five Asian/Australasian CCPs as operating under rules equivalent to Europe’s, allowing European banks to clear though them without incurring the punitive capital charges. To emphasize the point, the EU’s head of financial services, Michael Barnier, said the US could get the same treatment if it deferred to EU rules (something which Radhakrishnan basically said he was tired of talking about):

“If the CFTC also gives effective equivalence to third country CCPs, deferring to strong and rigorous rules in jurisdictions such as the EU, we will be able to adopt equivalence decisions very soon,” Barnier said.

Read this as a giant one finger salute from the EU to the CFTC.

So we have a Mexican standoff, and the clock is ticking. If the EU and the US don’t resolve matters, the world derivatives markets will become even more fragmented. This will make them less competitive, which is cruelly ironic given that one of Gensler’s claims was that his regulatory agenda would make the markets more competitive. This was predictably wrong-and some predicted this unintended perverse outcome.

Another part of Gensler’s agenda was to extend US regulatory reach to entities operating overseas whose failure could threaten US financial institutions. One of his major criteria for identifying such entities was whether they are guaranteed by a US institution. Those who are so guaranteed are considered “US persons,” and hence subject to the entire panoply of Frankendodd requirements, including notably the SEF mandate. The SEF mandate is loathed by European corporates, so this would further fragment the swaps market. (And as I have said often before, since end users are the alleged beneficiaries of the SEF mandate-Gary oft’ told us so!-it is passing strange that they are hell-bent on escaping it.)

European US bank affiliates with guarantees from US parents have responded by terminating the guarantees. Problem solved, right? The dreaded guarantees that could spread contagion from Europe to the US are gone, after all.

But US regulators and legislators view this as a means of evading Frankendodd. Which illustrates the insanity of it all. The SEF mandate has nothing to do with systemic risk or contagion. Since the ostensible purpose of the DFA was to reduce systemic risk, it was totally unnecessary to include the SEF mandate. But in its wisdom, the US Congress did, and Igor pursued this mandate with relish.

The attempts to dictate the mode of trade execution even by entities that cannot directly spread contagion to the US via guarantees epitomizes the overreach of the US. Any coherent systemic risk rationale is totally absent. The mode of execution is of no systemic importance. The elimination of guarantees eliminates the ability of failing foreign affiliates to impact directly US financial institutions. If anything, the US should be happy, because some of the dread interconnections that Igor Gensler inveighed against have been severed.

But the only logic that matters her is that of control. And the US and the Europeans are fighting over control. The ultimate outcome will be a more fragmented, less competitive, and likely less robust financial system.

This is just one of the things that Gensler hath wrought. I could go on. And in the future I will.

Print Friendly

June 18, 2014

SWP Itoldyasopalooza

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 8:22 pm

While I’m doing the SWP Itoldyasopalooza, three more items.

First, the CFTC has reopened comments on the position limits proposed rule. The CFTC has taken intense incoming fire on the issue of hedge exemptions in particular, and with good reason. There are many problems, but the most egregious is the restriction on “cross hedges” (e.g., using gas futures as a hedge against electricity price risk).

I discussed this issue in my comment letter to the CFTC. Here’s the gist of the problem. The CFTC calculates the hedging effectiveness (measured by the R2 in a regression) of nearby NG futures for spot electricity prices. It finds the effectiveness is low (i.e., the R2 in the relevant regression is small). Looking past the issue of how some risk reduction is better than nothing, this analysis betrays a complete misunderstanding of electricity pricing and how NG futures are used as hedges.

Spot electricity prices are driven by fuel prices, but the main drivers are short term factors such as load shocks (which are driven by weather) and outages. However, these spot-price drivers mean revert rapidly. A weather or outage shock damps out very quickly.

This means that forward power prices are primarily driven by forward fuel prices, because fuel price shocks are persistent while weather and outage shocks are not. So it makes perfect sense to hedge forward power price exposure with gas futures/forwards. The CFTC analysis totally misses the point. Firms don’t use gas forwards/futures to hedge spot power prices. They are using the more liquid gas futures to hedge forward power prices. This is a classic example of hedgers choosing their hedging instrument to balance liquidity and hedging effectiveness. Gas forwards provide a pretty good hedge of power forward prices, and are are more liquid than power forwards. Yes, power forwards may provide a more effective hedge, but that’s little comfort if they turn out to be roach motels that a hedger can check into, but can’t leave if/when it doesn’t need the hedge any more.

The CFTC  ignores liquidity, by the way. How is that possible?

Market participants have strong incentives to make the liquidity-hedging effectiveness trade off efficiently. They do it all the time. Hedgers live with basis risk (e.g., hedging heavy crude with WTI futures) because of the liquidity benefits of more heavily traded contracts. The CFTC position limit rule substitutes the agency’s judgment for that of market participants who actually bear/internalize the costs and benefits of the trade-off. This is a recipe for inefficiency, made all the more severe by the CFTC’s utter failure to understand the economics of the hedge it uses to justify its rule.

As proposed, the rule suggests that the CFTC is so paranoid about market participants using the hedge exemption to circumvent the limit that it has chosen to sharply limit permissible hedges. This is beyond perverse, because it strikes at the most important function of the derivatives markets: risk transfer.

(This issue is discussed in detail in chapter 8 of my 2011 book. I show that the “load delta” for short term power prices is high, but it is low for forward prices. Conversely, the “fuel price delta” is high for power forward prices, precisely because load/weather/outage shocks damp out quickly. The immediate implication of this is that fuel forwards can provide an effective hedge of forward power prices.)

Second, Simon Johnson opines that “Clearing houses could be the next source of chaos.” Who knew? It would have been nice had Simon stepped out on this 5 years ago.

Third, the one arguably beneficial aspect of Frankendodd and Emir-the creation of swaps data repositories-has been totally-and I mean totally-f*cked up in its implementation. Not content with the creation of a single Tower of Babel, American and European regulators have presided over the creation of several! Well played!

Reportedly, less than 30 percent of OTC deals can be matched by the repositories.

This too was predictable-and predicted (modesty prevents me from mentioning by whom). Repositories are natural monopolies and should be set up as utilities. A single repository minimizes fixed costs, and facilitates coordination and the creation of a standard. I went through this in detail in 2003 when I advocated the creation of an Energy Data Hub. But our betters decided to encourage the creation of multiple repositories (suppositories?) with a hodge-podge of reporting obligations and inconsistent reporting formats.

This brings to mind three quotes. One by Ronald Reagan: “‘I’m from the government and here to help you’ are the 8 scariest words in the English language.” The other two by Casey  Stengel. “Can’t anybody play this game?” and “He has third base so screwed up, nobody can play it right.”

Print Friendly

The Klearing Kool Aid Hangover

Back in Houston after a long trip to Turkey, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands speaking about various commodity and clearing related issues, plus some R&R. Last stop on the tour was Chicago, where the Chicago Fed put on a great event on Law and Finance. Clearing was at the center of the discussion. Trying to be objective as possible, I think I can say that my critiques of clearing have had an influence on how scholars and practitioners (both groups being well-represented in Chicago) view clearing, and clearing mandates in particular. There is a deep  skepticism, and a growing awareness that CCPs are not the systemic risk safeguard that most had believed in the period surrounding the adoption of Frankendodd. Ruben Lee’s lunch talk summarized the skeptical view well, and recognized my role in making the skeptic’s case. His remarks were echoed by others at the workshop. If only this had penetrated the skulls of legislators and regulators when it could have made a major difference.

And the hits keep on coming. Since about April 2010 in particular, the focus of my criticism of clearing mandates has been on the destabilizing effects of rigid marking-to-market and variation margin by CCPs. I emphasized this in several SWP posts, and also my forthcoming article (in the Journal of Financial Market Infrastructure, a Risk publication) titled “A Bill of Goods.” So it was gratifying to read today that two scholars at the LSE, Ron Anderson and Karin Joeveer, used my analysis as the springboard for a more formal analysis of the issue.

The Anderson-Joeveer paper investigates collateral generally. It concludes that the liquidity implications of increased need for initial margin resulting from clearing mandates are not as concerning as the liquidity implications of greater variation margin flows that will result from a dramatic expansion of clearing.

Some of their conclusions are worth quoting in detail:

In addition, our analysis shows that moving toward central clearing with product specialized CCPs can greatly increase the numbers of margin movements which will place greater demands on a participant’s operational capacity and liquidity. This can be interpreted as tipping the balance of benefits and costs in favor of retaining bilateral OTC markets for a wider range of products and participants. Alternatively, assuming a full commitment to centralized clearing, it points out the importance of achieving consolidation and effective integration across infrastructures for a wider range of financial products. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore:

A system relying principally on centralized clearing to mitigate counter-party risks creates increased demand for liquidity to service frequent margin calls. This can be met by opening up larger liquidity facilities, but indirectly this requires more collateral. To economize on the use of collateral, agents will try to limit liquidity usage, but this implies increased frequency of margin calls. This increases operational risks faced by CCPs which, given the concentration of risk in CCPs, raises the possibility that an idiosyncratic event could spill over into a system-wide event.

We have emphasized that collateral is only one of the tools used to control and manage credit risk. The notion that greater reliance on collateral will eliminate credit risk is illusory. Changing patterns in the use of collateral may not eliminate risk, but it will have implications for who will bear risks and on the costs of shifting risks. [Emphasis added.]

The G-20 stampede to impose clearing focused obsessively on counterparty credit risk, and ignored liquidity issues altogether. The effects of clearing on counterparty risk are vastly overstated (because the risk is mainly shifted, rather than reduced) and the liquidity effects have first-order systemic implications. Moving to a system which could increase margin flows by a factor of 10 (as estimated by Anderson-Joeveer), and which does so by increasing the tightness of the coupling of the system, is extremely worrisome. There will be large increases in the demand for liquidity in stressed market conditions that cause liquidity to dry up. Failures to get this liquidity in a timely fashion can cause the entire tightly-coupled system to break down.

As Ruben pointed out in his talk, the clearing stampede was based on superficial analysis and intended to achieve a political objective, namely, the desire to be seen as doing something. Pretty much everyone in DC and Brussels drank the Klearing Kool Aid, and now we are suffering the consequences.

Samuel Johnson said “Marry in haste, repent at leisure.” The same thing can be said of legislation and regulation.

Print Friendly

May 19, 2014

Deja Dit: Clearing My Spindle on . . . Clearing

Filed under: Clearing,Financial crisis,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:47 pm

Several clearing related stories, each of which gives me a sense of deja vu. Or deja dit, to be more accurate.

The Bank of England just released a paper warning about the potential pro-cyclicality of CCP initial margin methodologies. I have expressed concern about this for some time.

BofE expresses concern that pro-cyclicality threatens to cause a measure intended to reduce credit risk create liquidity risk instead. This is another Clearing Cassandra theme. (Speaking of Cassandra, I will be returning to the old stomping grounds of Troy next week. And I don’t mean a city in upstate NY.)

BofE recommends that CCPs make public their margin methodologies, something that sends the clearinghouses into paroxysms of rage. But it makes sense to do that. And not just to reveal to the marketplace the potential liquidity demands that these methodologies can create, thereby allowing them to prepare accordingly. But to permit clearing participants to estimate their exposure to CCPs.

Clearing member exposure to CCPs depends on the likelihood that initial margins are sufficient to cover losses. Estimation of this exposure requires CMs to be able to evaluate margin calculations under a variety of market scenarios. If CCPs keep their methodologies secret, this is not possible. Discriminating choice among CCPs also requires market participants to understand margin costs and exposure under different scenarios. Such choice is not possible if CCPs keep secret their calculations.

CCPs are the beneficiaries of clearing mandates. Due to margin spirals and other feedback effects, margin calculations have external effects. There is therefore a strong efficiency case favoring disclosure to mitigate the externality, and any commercial/competitive inconvenience CCPs suffer as a result is more than compensated for by the fact that government mandates force huge quantities of business their way.

Another story that has come to my attention is that RBS is cutting back its rate clearing business, in large part due to the substantial capital commitment required, and the operational overhead.

This is another long-time SWP theme. The regulatory burdens of being a clearing member create scale economies that will result-and is resulting-in substantial consolidation of the clearing business. Thus, the systemic risks associated with clearing arise not only because of concentration of risk in CCPs, but in concentration of risks in a dwindling number of clearing firms who participate in multiple CCPs. Concentration of risks in a small number of CMs is, in my view, actually more systemically worrisome than concentration of risks in a small number of CCPs. Indeed, it is precisely the concentration of risks in CMs that makes failure of a systemically important CCP more likely.

Recall the good old days, when Gensler fought to reduce the minimum capital requirement for CMs to $25 million in order to spur competition in the supply of clearing services? Good times, good times. Little did he recognize that the other myriad burdens of Franendodd and Emir would inevitably lead to consolidation, making the minimum capital requirement irrelevant.

But this was only one of Gensler’s delusions (or was it lies?) about clearing. I was therefore pleased, and admittedly somewhat shocked, to see his (interim) replacement, Mark Wetjen, (implicitly) call bull on Gensler’s Panglossian propaganda on clearing:

He made an interesting and refreshingly blunt departure from the superseded Gensler script, by referring to Clearing Houses as potential sources of systemic risk.

“A clearinghouse’s failure to adhere to rigorous risk management practices established by the Commission’s regulations, now more than ever, could have significant economic consequences.”

His predecessor’s evangelical belief in CCPs as universal risk-mitigants, refused to countenance the heresy that central clearing may at best merely transfer credit risk, and may actually result in concentration of and increase in systemic risk. Fundamentalism should have no place in regulation, especially the more fundamental reforms; Wetjen’s implied recognition that a central pillar of the Dodd-Frank reforms is open for objective discussion, represents an important and consequential change in the Agency’s culture and governance.

That last part is the opinion of Nick Railton-Edwards (a somewhat Pythonesque handle, eh?), who wrote the piece, rather than Wetjen. (He sounds like a like-minded, not to say right-minded, bloke.) But it is a realistic characterization of the implications of Wetjen’s remarks. I would add that this evangelism is exactly what I hammered Gensler for repeatedly in 2009-2013: Indeed, I repeatedly used the term evangelist to refer to Gensler and his allies. (And that hammering is why he banned me from the CFTC building-something that I have on unimpeachable authority.)

The sad thing about all this is that all of these things were foreseeable before legislators and regulators* went all in on clearing as The Solution. Certain Cassandras did foresee it. But now this is where we are, and some adults like the BofE and Wetjen are trying to mitigate the dangers that this rash and thoughtless plunge created.

Would that this had occurred at the front end of the process rather than the back. Better late than never, perhaps. But better early than late.

*Timmah! was Gensler’s partner in crime on this. Geithner has just released his memoirs, and is flogging the book. I will give him another flogging in due course. For old times’ sake.

Print Friendly

March 29, 2014

Margin Sharing: Dealer Legerdermain, or, That’s Capital, Not Collateral.

Concerns about the burdens of posting margins on OTC derivatives, especially posting by clients who tend to have directional positions, have led banks to propose “margin sharing.”  This is actually something of a scam.  I can understand the belief that margin requirements resulting from Frankendodd and Emir are burdensome, and need to be palliated, but margin sharing is being touted in an intellectually dishonest way.

The basic idea is that under DFA and Emir, both parties have to post margin.  Let’s say A and B trade, and both have to post $50mm in initial margins.  The level of margins is chosen so that the “defaulter (or loser) pays”: that is, under almost all circumstances, the losses on a defaulted position will be less than $50mm, and the defaulter’s collateral is sufficient to cover the loss.  Since either party may default, each needs to post the $50mm margin to cover losses in the event it turns out to be the loser.

But the advocates of margin sharing say this is wasteful, because only one party will default.  So the $50mm posted by the firm that doesn’t end up defaulting is superfluous.  Instead, just have the parties post $25mm each, leaving $50mm in total, which according to the advocates of margin sharing, is what is needed to cover the cost of default.  Problem solved!

But notice the sleight of hand here.  Under the loser pays model, all the $50mm comes out of the defaulter’s margin: the defaulter pays,  the non-defaulter receives all that it is owed, and makes no contribution from its own funds.  Under the margin sharing model, the defaulter may pay only a fraction of the loss, and the non-defaulter may use some of its $25mm contribution to make up the difference.   Both defaulter and non-defaulter pay.

This is fundamentally different from the loser pays model.  In essence, the shared margin is a combination of collateral and capital.  Collateral is meant to cover a defaulter’s market losses.  Capital permits the non-defaulter to absorb a counterparty credit loss.  Margin sharing essentially results in the holding of segregated capital dedicated to a particular counterparty.

I am not a fan of defaulter pays.  Or to put it more exactly, I am not a fan of mandated defaulter pays.  But it is better to confront the problems with the defaulter pays model head on, rather than try to circumvent it with financial doubletalk.

Counterparty credit issues are all about the mix between defaulter pays and non-defaulter pays.  Between collateral and capital.  DFA and Emir mandate a corner solution: defaulter pays.  It is highly debatable (but lamentably under-debated) whether this corner solution is best.  But it is better to have an open discussion of this issue, with a detailed comparison of the costs and benefits of the alternatives.  The margin sharing proposal blurs the distinctions, and therefore obfuscates rather than clarifies.

Call a spade a spade. Argue that there is a better mix of collateral and capital.  Argue that segregated counterparty-specific capital is appropriate.  Or not: the counterparty-specific, segregated nature of the capital in margin sharing seems for all the world to be a backhanded, sneaky way to undermine defaulter pays and move away from the corner solution.  Maybe counterparty-specific, segregated capital isn’t best: but maybe just a requirement based on a  firm’s aggregate counterparty exposures, and which doesn’t silo capital for each counterparty, is better.

Even if the end mix of capital and collateral that would result from collateral sharing  is better than the mandated solution, such ends achieved by sneaky means lead to trouble down the road.  It opens the door for further sneaky, ad hoc, and hence poorly understood, adjustments to the system down the line.  This increases the potential for rent seeking, and for the abuse of regulator discretion, because there is less accountability when policies are changed by stealth.  (Obamacare, anyone?)  Moreover, a series of ad hoc fixes to individual problems tends to lead to an incoherent system that needs reform down the road-and which creates its own systemic risks.  (Again: Obamacare, anyone?)  Furthermore, the information produced in an honest debate is a public good that can improve future policy.

In other words, a rethink on capital vs. collateral is a capital idea.  Let’s have that rethink openly and honestly, rather than pretending that things like margin sharing are consistent with the laws and regulations that mandate margins, when in fact they are fundamentally different.

Print Friendly

March 24, 2014

The Vertical (Silo) Bop: A Reprise

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 7:26 pm

With all the Ukraine stuff, and Gunvor, and travel, some things got lost in my spindle.  Time to catch up.

One story is this article about a debate between NASDAQ OMX’s Robert Greifeld and CME Group’s Phupinder Gill.  The “vertical silo” in which an exchange owns both an execution venue and a clearinghouse was a matter of contention:

Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. CEO Robert Greifeld was asked yesterday about the vertical silo and whether it hurts investors.

“Monopolies are great if you own one,” he said during a panel discussion at the annual Futures Industry Association conference in Boca Raton, Florida, paraphrasing a quote he recalled hearing from an investor. His exchanges don’t use this system. “We have yet to find a customer who is in favor of the vertical model,” he said.

A very retro topic here on SWP.  I blogged about it quite a bit in 2006-2007.  Despite that, it’s still a misunderstood subject :-P

Presumably Greifeld believes that eliminating the vertical silo would open up competition in execution.  Yes, there would be competition, but the outcome would likely still be a monopoly in execution given the rules in futures markets.  Under current futures market regulations, there is nothing analogous to RegNMS which effectively socializes order flow by requiring each execution venue to direct orders to any other venue displaying a better price.  Under current futures market regulations, there is no linkage between different execution venues, and no obligation to direct orders to a better priced market.  This leads traders to submit orders to the venue that they expect will be offering the best price.   In this environment, liquidity attracts liquidity, and order flow tips exclusively to a single market.

So opening up clearing would still result in a monopoly execution venue.  There would be competition to be the monopoly, but at the end of the day only one market would remain standing.  Most likely the incumbent (CME in most cases, ICE in some others.)

It is precisely the fact that competition in clearing and execution would lead to bilateral monopolies that drives the formation of a vertical silo.  This eliminates double marginalization problems and reduces the transactions costs arising from opportunism and bargaining that are inherent to bilateral monopoly situations.

Breaking up the vertical silo primarily affects who earns the monopoly rent, and in what form. These outcomes depend on how the silo is broken up.

One alternative is to require the integrated exchange to offer access to its clearinghouse on non-discriminatory terms.  In this case, the one monopoly rent theorem implies that the clearing natural monopoly could extract the entire monopoly rent via its clearing fee.  Indeed, it would have an incentive to encourage competition in execution because this would maximize the derived demand for clearing, and hence maximize the monopoly price.  (This would also allow the integrated exchange to be compensated for its investment in the creation of new contracts, a point Gill emphasizes.  In my opinion, this is a minor consideration.)

Another alternative (which seems to be what Greifeld is advocating) would be to create a utility CCP (a la DTCC) that provides clearing services at cost.  In this case, the winning execution venue will capture the monopoly rent.

To a first approximation, market users would pay the same cost to trade under either alternative. And most likely, the dominant incumbent (CME) would capture the monopoly rent, either in execution fees, or clearing fees, or a combination of the two.  Crucially, however, total costs would arguably be higher with the utility clearer-monopoly execution venue setup, due to the transactions costs associated with coordination, bargaining, and opportunism between separate clearing and execution venues.  (Unfortunately, the phrase “transactions costs” does double duty in this context.  There are the costs that traders incur to transact, and the costs of operating and governing the trading and clearing venues.)

A third alternative would be to move to a structure like that in the US equity market, with a utility clearer and a RegNMS-type socialization of order flow.  Which would result in all the integration and fragmentation nightmares that are currently the subject of so much angst in the equity world.  Do we really want to inflict that on the futures markets?

As I’ve written ad nauseum over the years, there is no Nirvana in trading market structure.  You have a choice between inefficiencies arising from monopoly, or inefficiencies arising from fragmentation.   Not an easy choice, and I don’t know the right answer.

What I do know is that the vertical silo per se is not the problem.  The silo is an economizing response to the natural monopoly tendencies in clearing and execution (when there is no obligation to direct order flow to venues displaying better prices).  The sooner we get away from assuming differently (and the Boca debate is yet another example of our failure to do so) the sooner we will have realistic discussions of the real trade-offs in trading market structure.

Print Friendly

March 11, 2014

CCP Insurance for Armageddon Time

Matt Leising has an interesting story in Bloomberg about a consortium of insurance companies that will offer an insurance policy to clearinghouses that will address one of the most troublesome issues CCPs face: what to do when the waterfall runs dry.  That is, who bears any remaining losses after the defaulters’ margins, defaulters’ default fund contributions, CCP capital, and non-defaulters’ default fund contributions (including any top-up obligation) are all exhausted.

Proposals include variation margin haircuts, and initial margin haircuts.  Variation margin haircuts would essentially reduce the amount that those owed money on defaulted contracts would receive, thereby mutualizing default losses among “winners.”  Initial margin haircuts would share the losses among both winners and losers.

Given that the “winners” include many hedgers who would have suffered losses on other positions, I’ve always found variation margin haircutting problematic: it would reduce payoffs precisely in those states of the world in which the marginal utility of those payoffs is particularly high.  But that has been the industry’s preferred approach to this problem, though it has definitely not been universally popular, to say the least.  Distributive battles are never popularity contests.

This is where the insurance concept steps in.  The insurers will cover up to $6 to $10 billion in losses (across multiple CCPs) once all other elements of the default waterfall-including non-defaulters’ default fund contributions and CCP equity-are exhausted.  This will sharply limit, and eliminate in all but the most horrific scenarios, the necessity of mutualizing losses among non-clearing members via variation or initial margin haircutting.

Of course this sounds great in concept.  But one thing not discussed in the article is price.  How expensive will the coverage be?  Will CCPs find it sufficiently affordable to buy, or will they decide to haircut margins in some way instead because that is cheaper?

As I say in Matt’s article, although this proposal addresses one big headache regarding CCPs in extremis, it does not address another major concern: the wrong way risk inherent in CCPs.  Losses are likely to hit the default fund in crisis scenarios, which is precisely when the CCP member firms (banks mainly) are least able to take the hit.

It would have been truly interesting if insurers would have been willing to share losses with CCP members.  That would have mitigated the wrong way risk problem.  But the insurers were evidently not willing to do that.   This is likely because they are concerned about the moral hazard problems.  Members would have less incentive to mitigate risk if some of that risk is offloaded onto insurers who don’t influence CCP risk management and margining the way member firms do.

In sum, the insurers are taking on the risk in the extreme tail.  This of course raises the question of whether they are able to bear such risk, as it is likely to crystalize precisely during Armageddon Time. The consortium attempts to allay those concerns by pointing out that they have no derivatives positions (translation: We are not AIG!!!)  But there is still reason to ponder whether these companies will be solvent during the wrenching conditions that will exist when potentially multiple CCPs blow through their entire waterfalls.

Right now this is just a proposal and only the bare outlines have been disclosed.  It will be fascinating to see whether the concept actually sells, or whether CCPs will figure it is cheaper to offload the risk in the extreme tail on their customers rather than on insurance companies in exchange for a premium.

I’m also curious: will Buffett participate.  He’s the tail risk provider of last resort, and his (hypocritical) anti-derivatives rhetoric aside, this seems like it’s right down his alley.

Print Friendly

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress