Streetwise Professor

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

March 7, 2014

Clearing Risks, Kimchi Edition

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Regulation — The Professor @ 5:32 pm

Major banks are having major concerns about the risks associated with CCPs in the aftermath of a failure of  a Korean brokerage firm that resulted in the mutualization of losses on the KRX.  The firm failed due to a fat-finger error (puts? calls? whatever!) and its margins were insufficient to cover its trading losses.

This experience is making CCP member firms re-evaluate the risks of CCPs, the risk controls implemented by CCPs, and the incentives of CCPs to control risk.   They realize that CCPs do not eliminate counterparty risk so much as redistribute it.  They are concerned about the incentives that CCPs have to manage those risks unless they have substantial exposure to them (“skin in the game”).

But here’s the thing.  This particular sequence of events is exactly what CCPs are best suited to handle: the insuring of idiosyncratic risks.  In this instance, the idiosyncratic risk was an random operational error at a single brokerage.

But that’s not why the G20 advocated clearing mandates.  The G20 went down the clearing path to mitigate systemic risk, which occurs when a shock hits many institutions simultaneously.  That is a very different beast indeed.

If banks lie awake at night worrying about the incentives of CCPs to mitigate idiosyncratic risks, they should never sleep ever if they think about systemic risk.  CCPs are ill-adapted to handle systemic risk precisely because risk pooling/diversification works for idiosyncratic risks, but not systematic ones.

Put differently: the failure of the Korean brokerage did not create a wrong way risk.  The failure did not cause a hit to the default fund when the non-defaulting members were under financial strain.  But defaults that occur during a crisis situation are laden with wrong way risk: losses are mutualized precisely when the members of the default fund are least able to bear them.

So if banks are concerned about the potential for a CCP failure in response to a bad realization of an idiosyncratic risk, think about the appropriate level of concern about the viability of CCPs in response to systematic risks.

A bite of kimchi can have a truly bracing effect. Would that regulators around the world take heed of the lessons of recent events from the land of kimchi.

Print Friendly

March 4, 2014

Derivatives Priorities in Bankrutpcy: A Hobson’s Choice?

And now for something completely different . . . finance.  (More Russia/Ukraine later.)

The Bank of England wants to put a stay on derivatives contracts entered into by an insolvent bank, thereby negating some of the priorities in bankruptcy accorded to derivatives counterparties:

he U.K. central bank wants lenders and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc., an industry group, to agree to temporarily halt claims on banks that become insolvent and need intervention, Andrew Gracie, executive director of the BOE’s special resolution unit, said in an interview.

“The entry of a bank into resolution should not in itself be an event of default which allows counterparties to start accelerating contracts and triggering cross-defaults,” Gracie said. “You would get what you saw in Lehmans — huge amounts of uncertainty and an uncontrolled cascade of closeouts and cross defaults in the market.”

The priority status of derivatives trades is problematic at best: although it increases the fraction of the claims that derivatives counterparties receive from a bankrupt bank, this effect is primarily redistributive.  Other creditors receive less.  On the plus side, in the absence of priorities, counterparties could be locked into contracts entered into as hedges that are of uncertain value and which may not pay off for some time.  This complicates the task of replacing the hedge entered into with the bankrupt bank.   On balance, given the redistributive nature of priorities, and the fact that some of those who lose due to the fact that derivatives are privileged may be systemically important or may run, there is something to be said for this change.

But the redistributive nature of priorities makes me skeptical that this will really have that much effect on whether a bank gets into trouble in the first place.  In particular, since runs and liquidity crises are what really threatens the stability of banks, the change of priorities likely will mainly just affect who has the incentive to run on a troubled institution, without affecting all that much the overall probability of a run.

Under the current set of priorities, derivatives counterparties have an incentive to stick longer with a troubled bank, because in the event it becomes insolvent they have a priority claim.  But this makes other claimants on a failing bank more anxious to run, because they know that if the bank does fail derivatives counterparties will get a lion’s share of the remaining assets.  By reducing the advantages that the derivatives couunterparties have, they are more likely to run and pull value from the failing firm, whereas other claimants are less likely to run than under the current regime.  (Duffie’s book on the failure of an OTC derivatives dealer shows how derivatives counterparties can effectively run.)

In other words, in terms of affecting the vulnerability of a bank to a destabilizing run, the choice of priorities is something of a Hobson’s choice.  It affects mainly who has an incentive to run, rather than the likelihood of a run over all.

The BoE’s initiative seems to be symptomatic of something I’ve criticized quite a bit over the past several years: the tendency to view derivatives in isolation.  Triggering of cross-defaults and accelerating contracts is a problem because they can hasten the collapse of a shaky bank.  So fix that, and banks become more stable, right? But maybe not because it changes the behavior and decisions of others who can also bring down a financial institution. This is why I am skeptical that these sorts of changes will affect the stability of banks much one way or the other.  They might affect where a fire breaks out, but not the likelihood of a fire overall.

Print Friendly

January 28, 2014

Were the Biggest Banks Playing Brer Rabbit on the Clearing Mandate, and Was Gensler Brer Fox?

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Exchanges,Financial crisis,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 10:25 pm

One interesting part of the Cœuré speech was his warning that the clearing business was coming to be dominated by a few large banks, that are members of multiple CCPs:

Moreover, it appears that for many banks, indirect access is their preferred way to get access to clearing services so as to comply with the clearing obligation. Client clearing seems thus to be dominated by a few large global intermediaries. A factor contributing to this concentration may be higher compliance burdens, where only the very largest of firms are capable of taking on cross-border activity. This concentration creates a higher degree of dependency on this small group of firms.

There are also concerns about client access to this limited number of firms offering client clearing services. For example, there is some evidence of clearing firms “cherry picking” clients, while other end-users are commercially unattractive customers and hence unable to access centrally cleared markets.

These are all developments that I believe the international regulatory community may wish to carefully monitor and act on as and when needed.

And wouldn’t you know.  He supports a longstanding SWP theme: That Frankendodd and EMIR and Basel create a huge regulatory burden that is essentially a fixed cost.  This increase in fixed costs raises scale economies, and this inevitably leads to an increase in concentration-and arguably a reduction in competition, in the provision of clearing services.

It now seems rather quaint that there was a debate over whether CCPs should be required to lower the minimum capital threshold for membership to $50 million.  That’s not the barrier to entry/participation.  It’s the regulatory overhead.

It’s actually an old story.  I remember a Maloney and McCormick paper from the 80s-hell, maybe even the late 70s-about the effects of the regulation of particulates in textile factories (if I recall).  The cost of complying with the regulation was essentially fixed, and the law essentially favored big firms and they profited from it.  It raised the costs of their smaller rivals, led to their exit, and resulted in higher prices and the big firms profited.  Similarly, I recall that  several papers by the late Peter Pashigian (a member of my PhD committee) found that environmental regulations favored large firms.

The Cœuré speech suggests this may be happening here: note the part about client access to a “limited number of clearing firms.”

And it’s not just pipsqueaks that are exiting the clearing business.  The largest custodian bank-BNY Mellon-is closing up shop:

More banks are expected to follow BNY Mellon’s lead and pull out of client clearing, as flows have concentrated among half a dozen major players following the roll-out of mandatory clearing in the US last year.

The decision of the world’s largest custodian bank to shutter its US clearing unit was the first real indication of how much institutions are struggling with spiralling costs and complexity associated with clearing clients’ swaps trades – a business once viewed as the cash cow of the new regulatory regime.

You might recall that BNY Mellon was one of the firms that complained loudest about the high capital requirements of becoming a member of ICE Trust and LCH.  Again: it’s not the CCP capital requirements that are the issue.  It’s the other substantial cost of providing client clearing services, and regulatory/compliance costs are a big part of that.

Ah yes, another Gensler argument down in flames.  Remember how he constantly told us-lectured us, actually-that Frankendodd would dramatically increase competition in derivatives?  That it would break the dealer hammerlock on the OTC market?

Remember how I called bull?

Whose call looks better now?  Sometimes I wonder if JP Morgan, Goldman, Barclays, etc., weren’t playing the role of Brer Rabbit, and Gensler was playing Brer Fox. For he done trown dem into dat brer patch, sure ’nuff.

Though it must be said that this was not Gensler’s biggest contribution to reducing competition in derivatives markets in the name of increasing competition.  His insane extraterritoriality decisions have fragmented the OTC derivatives markets, with Europeans reluctant to trade with Americans.  The fragmentation of the markets reduces counterparty choice in both Europe and the US, thereby limiting competition.

This is not just a matter of competition.  There are systemic issues involved as well, and these also make a mockery of the Frankendodd evangelists.  They assured the world that Frankendodd and clearing mandates would reduce reliance on a few large, highly interconnected intermediaries in the derivatives markets. That is proving to be another lie, on the order of “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”  The old system relied on a baker’s dozen or so large, highly interconnected dealers.  The new system will rely on probably a handful or two large, highly interconnected clearing firms.

The most important elements in the clearing system are a small number of major banks that are clearing members at several global CCPs.  The failure or financial distress of any one of these would wreak havoc in the derivatives markets and the clearing mechanism, just as the failure of a major dealer firm would shake the bilateral OTC markets to the core.

Just think about one issue: portability.  If there are only a small number of huge clearing firms, is it really feasible to port the clients of one of them to the few remaining CMs, especially during times of market stress when these might not have the capital to take on a large number of new clients?

What happens then?

I don’t want to think about it: there’s only so much I can handle.

But Cœuré assures us the regulators are on top of it.  Or at least they are thinking about getting on top of it: “the international regulatory community may wish to carefully monitor and act on as and when needed.”  ”May wish to act as needed.”  Sure. Take your time! What’s the hurry? What’s the worry?

I won’t dwell on the  irony of those who advocated the measures that got us into this situation pulling their chins and telling us this might be a matter of concern, especially since they were deaf to warnings made back when they could have avoided leading us down the path that led us to this oh-so-predictable destination.

Print Friendly

January 26, 2014

Disconnected About Interconnections: Regulators Still Don’t Get the Systemic Risks in Central Clearing

A board member of the ECB, Benoît Cœuré, gave a speech that discussed “the new risks associated with central clearing.” It is evident that Cœuré is a proponent of central clearing, though it is annoying to see him identify multilateral netting as the main benefit (<holds head in hands>).  But it is good to see yet again that central bankers are aware that central clearing does create new risks, and that regulators must be proactive in addressing them.

The problem is that he overlooks the most important risks.  Reading between the lines, like most regulators, Cœuré focuses on the solvency risks of CCPs, and about policy tools that can limit the probability of CCP insolvency and mitigate the adverse impacts of such an insolvency.

But as I’ve written repeatedly in the past, it’s not the insolvency risk per se that should keep people up at night.  Indeed, the measures taken to address the solvency risk can actually exacerbate the real risk a dramatic expansion of central clearing creates for the financial system: liquidity risk.

Liquidity crises are what threaten to bring down financial systems.  For most financial institutions, there is a connection between liquidity risk and solvency: banks become illiquid because (in a world of imperfect information) people believe they might become insolvent.  Maturity mismatches plus imperfect information plus possibility of insolvency combine to create liquidity crises.

CCPs don’t have the maturity mismatches, and they aren’t leveraged.  They cannot experience liquidity crises in the same way banks can.  The direct liquidity risk of CCPs is related to their ability to turn collateral into cash in the event of a member default.

But as I’ve said over and over, clearing affects the needs for liquidity by market participants.  Central clearing can be a source of, or accelerant of, liquidity crises.  Big price moves lead to big margin calls lead to spikes in liquidity demand. These are most likely to occur during periods of financial stress, and can greatly exacerbate that stress.  Moreover, failure of a CCP is most likely to occur due to the inability of traders to fund margin calls due to the shortage of liquidity.   This old article by Andrew Brimmer discusses two episodes I’ve analyzed on several occasions-the Hunts in silver and Black Monday-and shows how it is liquidity/credit/funding of margin calls for CCPs that can create stresses in the financial system.

This is where the systemic risk of clearing arises.  But the subject is totally absent from Cœuré’s speech.  Which is worrisome.

There is also the fallacy of composition problem.  The measures that Cœuré advocates to make CCPs stronger do NOT necessarily make the system stronger.  Strengthening CCPs can actually exacerbate the liquidity problems that clearing causes during a crisis.  The CCP may survive, due to these measures, but the stresses communicated to the rest of the system (and the stress has to go somewhere) can cause other institutions to fail.

This is what scares the bejeezus out of me.  Regulators don’t seem to get the fallacy of composition, and aren’t focused on the liquidity implications of greatly expanded central clearing.

These fears are heightened by reading this DTCC report about collateral and collateral management.

It contains this heading that should make every central banker and financial regulator soil his armor:

Margin Call activity to increase By up to 1000%

Then there’s this:

Operational Capabilities and Settlement Exceptions Management: The potential ten-fold increase in margin call volumes, and the resulting complexity due to market changes, could overwhelm the current operational processes and system infra-structures within banks, buy-side firms and their administrators. As a result, firms will need to invest in technology and also reengineer the settlement, exceptions management and dispute resolution processes in place today. According to a 2011 De- loitte paper, investments in operations required to build and sustain advanced collateral capabilities is estimated at upwards of $50 million annually for top-tier banks.

Be afraid.  Be very, very, very afraid.

The dramatic increase in the scope of clearing substantially increases the operational complexity of the system.  More importantly, it increases the system’s operational rigidity, because cash has to flow quickly, and according to a very precise schedule.  From client to FCM to CCP to FCM to client.  Any failures in that chain can bring down the entire system.

I say again.  Systemic risk in financial systems is largely due to the fact that these systems are tightly coupled.  Clearing increases tight coupling.  This almost certainly increases systemic risk.

More players have to move more money in more jurisdictions as a result of clearing mandates.  As the DTCC report makes plain, this is a new responsibility for many of these players, and they do not have the capability or experience or systems.  Greater operational complexity involving more parties, many of whom are relatively inexperienced, creates grave risks in a tightly coupled financial system.

The irony of all this is that the evangelists of clearing, including notably Timmy! and GiGi in the US, argued that central clearing would reduce the interconnectedness of the financial markets.  Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

It reconfigures the interconnections.  The entire collateral management system the DTCC document describes is a dense web of interconnections.  And to reiterate: under central clearing (and the mandate to margin and mark-to-market uncleared derivatives) these connections (couplings) are tighter than in the old system.  Both old and new systems are highly interconnected.  The connections in the new system are tighter, and are more vulnerable to failure as a result.

I’ll tell you what makes me have to go change my armor: the regulators seem oblivious to this.  To the extent they are focused on collateral, they are focused on initial margin. No! It is variation margin calls during periods of large market movements that will threaten the stability of the system. Now there will be more such calls–1000 pct more, according to DTCC–and more participants are involved, meaning that there are more links and nodes.  The tightly coupled nature of the system means that the breakdown of a few links can bring down the entire thing.

In other words, there seems to be a disconnect on interconnections, most specifically on how clearing has not reduced interconnections but reshaped them, and how the new system’s interconnections are much more rigid, tightly coupled, and time-sensitive.

Not to pick on Cœuré: his speech is just one example of that disconnect.  The thing is that most speeches by regulators and central bankers exhibit the same disconnect.  Target fixation on making CCPs invulnerable does not address the main systemic risk that an expansion of clearing creates.  That systemic risk involves the financial/funding and operational risks of meeting large margin calls in a stressed environment on a precise time schedule.

It’s about liquidity, liquidity, liquidity.  Clearing transforms credit/solvency risk into liquidity risk.  The operational aspects of clearing-the need to move cash and collateral around in large amounts on a tight time schedule-affects the demand for liquidity, and also create points of failure that can cause the liquidity mechanism to seize up, threatening the entire system.

This is what should be the focus, but I’m seeing precious little evidence that it is.  Someday we’ll pay the price.

Print Friendly

January 20, 2014

Day of the Mifid, or, To Stupidity and Beyond!

Filed under: Clearing,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy,Exchanges,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 7:03 pm

After years of wending through to what is to an American an incomprehensible legislative process that involves a three body problem (the trialogue of the Commission, the EU Parliament, and member states), Europe has agreed on its version of the trade execution portion of Frankendodd: Mifid II.  (The clearing and OTC collateralization equivalents are covered under a different law, EMIR.)  A good summary is here.

It contains many of the objectionable features of Frankendodd, namely, a mandate that swaps be executed on SEF-like entities (Organized Trading Facilities, or OTFs, in Euro parlance), and commodity position limits.  The former were pretty much a done deal after the Pittsburgh G20 meeting, the latter a reflection of the global suspicions of “speculation” in commodities, but intensified by European NGO convictions that speculation in food is evil.  (The shade of Adam Smith is shaking his head, noting that his observation about the equivalence between the popular terrors and suspicions against speculation and  the popular terrors and suspicions involving witchcraft is as apt today as it was in 1776.  Except that witchcraft is probably much more socially acceptable these days.)

But the EU has added its own idiosyncratic idiocies to its law.  Two things stand out.

First, the EU has mandated open access to derivatives exchange CCPs, in an attempt to demolish the vertical silo model.  Yes, the mandate is delayed-by as much as 5 years-but “I will wait 5 years to be stupid” hardly seems to be much of  a defense.  As I’ve written for years-a year or two before SWP began, in point of fact-the vertical silo makes economic sense (from a transactions cost economics perspective), and the pro-competition justification for it (namely, to encourage competition in execution) is inconsistent with what economists have known since the 1960s (the “one monopoly rent” theorem).

Second, and even more inanely, Mifid II caps the dark pool share in the trading of any individual equity at 8 percent.  Overlooking the operational difficulties of enforcing a collective constraint on volume across multiple venues, this reflects a suspicion of dark pools (a pejorative name in itself) that is again not grounded in good economics.  In a second best world, where competition between exchanges is imperfect, off-exchange venues (block markets in the old days, internalization, dark pools) can be welfare enhancing.  The fact that many market participants find them the lowest-cost venue to transact in should at least give pause to regulators, and ask them to inquire why this is true, and do the appropriate cost-benefit analysis of the trade-offs involved.  But no, fools rush in.

It strikes me that the  Euros have created a new Pixar character.  Buzz Darkpool: “To stupidity and beyond!” Derivatives trading mandates and position limits are stupid, but they’ve decided to go beyond that.

Meaning that the US can perhaps adopt what I’ve often said is the Russophile motto: “Not the worst!”

Print Friendly

December 15, 2013

Frankendodd Shifts Risk Around, Rather Than Making It Disappear! Who Knew?

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Economics,Financial crisis,Politics,Regulation — The Professor @ 5:20 pm

According to one of my industry contacts, this article in the Fiscal Times has “created a lot of unwanted buzz” in DC.  Because our betters find it so very inconvenient when reality intrudes on their fantasies.

The article focuses on the clearing mandate.  It points out that the main effect of the mandate is to shift risk around, and concentrate it in CCPs.  The risk doesn’t go away.  It moves.

Let me think.  Who was pointing this out five years ago?  Modesty prevents me from naming names.

Clearing was sold-most notably by my bêtes noire Geithner and Gensler*-as a magic box that made counterparty risk disappear.  This was a false claim, and arguably a dishonest one.  I find it hard to believe that Gensler, for instance, really believed what he said.  And the alternatives are ugly.  He (and other advocates of the clearing mandate) either made arguments he (they) knew to be untrue, or was (were) utterly ignorant of the implications of the policies that he (they) was (were) implementing and supporting.  Choices: (A) Idiot. (B) Liar. (C) There is no choice (C).

In reality, clearing mainly shifts around counterparty risk, and creates new risks, most notably liquidity risks.

All of these things were foreseeable, and foreseen-by some. Who were ignored, and at times reviled.

Why did this happen? It seems to me that in the heated days of the crisis, there was a desperation to find a solution.  For a variety of reasons, most notably the fact that the major cleared markets dealt with the Lehman situation without much problem, policymakers seized on clearing as the panacea.  And once they had done that, getting the clearing mandate passed became an end in itself.  The decision had been made, all doubts had to be suppressed.

But where does that leave us? With the growing recognition that the alleged panacea was nothing of the sort.  With the creeping recognition that the mandate has created a new set of risks.  A new set of potential sources of systemic instability.  So now policymakers are scrambling to address and to mitigate these problems.

It would have been so much better had these problems been anticipated, in advance, and the law drafted accordingly.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. I and others anticipated these problems at noon on Sunday.  But we were left on the sidelines, while the geniuses called and ran the plays. We are going to be dealing with the consequences of that for years to come.

*One blessedly departed from government “service”, and the other blessedly about to do so.

Print Friendly

November 27, 2013

Some of Cassandra’s (AKA SWP’s) Warnings on Clearing Begin to Take Hold

Filed under: Clearing,Derivatives,Financial crisis,Regulation — The Professor @ 9:49 pm

I’ve been hammering on the theme of the systemic risks of central clearing-especially mandated central clearing-for around five years.  And now those concerns are being expressed with greater frequency.  Fed Governor Jerome Powell gave a speech focusing on the most straightforward source of systemic risk in mandated clearing: the concentration of risk in the clearinghouse, which becomes a single point of failure whose collapse could jeopardize the broader financial system.   Bernanke made a similar argument a couple of years back.

Some articles from the last several days highlight more subtle, but in my view more important, concerns.  This Reuters piece mentions several things I’ve focused on over the years: the strains that clearing can put on the liquidity of individual firms, and the system at large; margin pro-cyclicality;  and crucially, the fact that self-preserving actions taken by CCPs may have destabilizing effects elsewhere in the financial system.

This last point demonstrates a danger in the Powell approach which focuses on making CCPs invulnerable, which I’ve referred to as the levee effect.  Just as making the levee higher at one point does not reduce flooding risk throughout a river system, but redistributes it, strengthening a CCP can redistribute shocks elsewhere in the system in a highly destabilizing way.  CCP managers focus on CCP survival, not on the survival of the entire system, and this is quite dangerous when as is almost certainly the case, their decisions have external effects.  Indeed, greater reliance on CCPs increases the tightness of the coupling of the financial system, which can be highly problematic under stressed conditions.  Liquidity and funding are the primary channels by which CCP decisions will have external effects on the broader financial markets.

These considerations are related to a broader point, which is that CCPs are merely parts, albeit important ones, of a broader financial system, and they must be evaluated in the context of the entire system.  An article in the International Financing Review by Christopher Whittall provides another illustration of this, again related to liquidity.  He notes that Basel III’s leverage ratio clashes with the tremendous thirst of CCPs for liquidity:

“The move towards central clearing creates a focus on how to fund margin requirements, which should dictate an increase in repo activity from banks. The problem is repo becomes very unappealing for banks under the leverage ratio.”

So sayeth the head of fixed income at a major bank.  CCPs create tremendous funding needs, and particularly contingent funding needs that are especially large in stressed conditions when liquidity is hard to come by.  These needs are hard enough to address in the absence of a leverage ratio, but as the fixed income guy notes, this is an even bigger problem when it is present.  As he says: “Viewed as a whole, we can start to start to see how these different regulations don’t quite hang together from a macro-prudential perspective.”

Exactly.  Illustrating another theme: Regulatory responses to the crisis have tended to focus on the individual pieces with too little attention paid to how regulations of one piece affect the other pieces.  The interaction between the leverage ratio and clearing mandates is a particularly worrisome example.  In any complex system, it is the interaction between interconnected pieces of the system that can lead to abrupt collapses.  Making each piece of the system more robust doesn’t necessarily make the system more robust.  Indeed, the opposite can be true.

Yes, I’ve been a Cassandra on these issues.  So in some sense, it’s good to see that the concerns that prompted my prophesies are now getting more widespread attention.  But methinks that the post-crisis regulatory juggernaut is impossible to reverse, and that although some of the problems in clearing and the interactions between clearing and other aspects of financial regulation can be ameliorated, the basic sources of systemic risk inherent in the new financial and regulatory structure will persist.

Print Friendly

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress