Streetwise Professor

Gary Gensler has been an evangelist for transparency in derivatives markets.  He has tirelessly argued that increasing transparency, especially in the OTC markets, will go a long way to making them more competitive and more efficient.

But Gensler apparently believes transparency works no such miracles for the operations of the CFTC.  Energy traders (including the industry and the banks) are completely at a loss to explain the CFTC’s ominous special call for information about exchange of futures for swaps (and other related positions (Risk subscription required-unless you know the trick.)  (I expressed my amazement at this ex post facto scrutiny when the story first broke.)   Why is the CFTC giving EFS the stink eye after years of not merely acquiescing to them, but actively encouraging them as a way of putting energy trading back on its feet after the merchant energy meltdown of 2002-2003?  Who knows?  The CFTC isn’t saying.  Hell, the CFTC isn’t even admitting that it is conducting an inquiry:

The notices contain no information about the CFTC’s motives – and a spokesman for the agency declines even to confirm the existence of the special calls – leaving dealers and their lawyers to guess why the regulator has sud-denly decided to probe a market that it helped set up over a decade ago. Part of the answer is that, however it may appear, this is not a sudden change of heart.

How’s that for transparency?!?

The Risk article does provide some interesting background on previous Commission attempts to crack down on certain kinds of EFS transactions.  Failed attempts, I should emphasize, because the proposal could not get a majority of the commissioners to vote for it.

To me, EFS seem like a tremendous example of financial innovation that solved a serious problem in the energy markets and facilitated an objective that Gensler otherwise embraces enthusiastically: moving OTC transactions into clearing.  The market success of this innovation speaks volumes about its value.  It’s rather hard for me to see what’s objectionable about it.

But maybe I’m wrong.  I’d be more than willing to entertain these objections.  But in order to do that, I’d have to, you know, know what they are.  Which would require some transparency from the Apostle of Transparency.

Dealer banks and the CME squared off in the pages of the FT today, arguing over the systemic risks of CCPs.  Each made some good points; each whiffed on a few; both overlooked the real sources of systemic risk arising from clearing mandates.

First, the banks:

“We are losing track of the nominal risk,” warned Jean-Pierre Mustier, head of investment banking at UniCredit and a former board member at London-based LCH.Clearnet. “We’re moving from a set-up where banks were interconnected, because they had transactions between them, to a system where very lowly capitalised entities, the clearing houses, are supposed to protect the banks from a problem.”

. . . .

Banks have voiced concerns to regulators in Europe and the US that central clearing houses are providing insufficient data on their own risks and demanding lower-quality collateral for swaps transactions. They argue the risks are too opaque, and getting riskier.

“It’s going in the wrong direction,” said the head of credit trading at a large US bank. “The race to the bottom is on.” He and other executives were critical of the CME’s decision to accept corporate bonds as collateral, a step down from the safer instruments usually required for margin.

There are reasons to be concerned about the expansion of the collateral pool to include more risky assets.  This is especially true inasmuch as these assets are likely to become less liquid precisely when a CCP needs to liquidate them: during a systemic even that causes the failure of a large, or several large, clearing members.  This problem could be mitigated by giving CCPs access to central bank liquidity, collateralized by the corporate bonds, etc., they take in as initial margin.  But the fundamental driver here is that clearing mandates have dramatically increased the need for initial margin, and it was inevitable that this would result in expansion of eligible collateral.  It’s not a competitive race to the bottom, it’s facing reality: indeed, CCPs in individual product spaces face relatively little competition.

Concern about initial margin methodology is also reasonable.  Under-margining leads to the mutualization of risk in excess of what CMs had anticipated: over-margining leads to inflated trading costs.  But the crucial problem with any CCP methodology is that it takes into account position risk only, and doesn’t vary margin with the balance sheet risk of the member firms.  This tends to lead to excessive trading by weaker clearing members, as they don’t have to post higher collateral, as their poorer credit would suggest they should.  This is pretty much an inherent feature of clearing, for informational and governance reasons, as I’ve discussed frequently here on SWP in the past.

Now to CME,  as represented by Chairman Terry Duffy:

Terry Duffy, executive chairman of CME Group, said the shift in moving more OTC derivatives transactions was more profound than just transferring the risk and exposure to a counterparty default from banks to clearing houses. “The difference is with a clearing house we do market-to-market [risk management], either twice daily or have the ability to do it much more often,” he said on a visit to London.

“What’s important is making certain the pays and collects are done on a risk basis and not a mark-to-myth or anything else. Because of that, we have a much easier time doing the pays and collects than the banks do if it was a bilateral transaction. In turn, I think some of the banks are just not used to the model of clearing.”

This relates to variation margin, which was/is often collected in OTC transactions (once exposure exceeds negotiated credit limits between the parties.)  Several points to make here.  First, variation margin is basically a way of keeping initial margin levels current.  This doesn’t really address the issue raised by the banks of whether initial margin levels are adequate, banks can determine that, and the quality of the collateral posted as initial margin (and whether the haircuts applied against this collateral are commensurate with the risks).  Second, you can go through the process of marking to market, but the protection provided by that process depends crucially on the quality of the prices.  That depends on market liquidity, trading activity, etc.  You need a market to mark to, and for many products that will be brought into clearing there are serious doubts about the reliability of the prices used for markets.  If there’s a liquid market, the prices it generates more accurate MTM in both bilateral and cleared trades: if there isn’t, both cleared and bilateral MTMs are dodgy.  Third, as I’ll discuss more in detail, the mechanical process of marking to market can actually create systemic risks.

The FT reporter, Phillip Stafford, also mentions that banks complain about the inadequacy of CCP capital, but notes that CCPs also have default/guarantee funds that they can call on to prevent a CCP default. But that’s exactly what the big banks are worried about.  Their exposure to CCPs comes first and foremost through their participation in these funds.   There’s only a thin layer of CCP capital separating a defaulter’s margin (and default fund contribution) from the non-defaulters’ contributions.  If the CCP under margins, that capital can be blown through very quickly, and expose banks to substantial losses.  These losses are most likely to occur, moreover, during stressed market conditions when banks are least able to afford the hit.  This wrong way risk is precisely what banks are complaining about.

Truth be told, although both the banks and the CCPs (to the extent Duffy is representing the clearing industry perspective) have some valid points, they miss the big systemic risks associated with clearing and clearing mandates.  I’m sort of in the middle of my Streetwise Professor Worldwide Personified Clearing Tour, in which I’ve given talks on the systemic risks of clearing in Chicago, Frankfurt, Osaka, Istanbul, DC, and the UK (London and Oxford), and will give another in Paris in September.  (Rough duty, I know, but somebody has to do it.)  Here are some of the greatest hits I play at each stop.

• Clearing, and in particular multilateral netting, basically redistributes credit risk from derivatives counterparties to other creditors of defaulting CCP members.  These other creditors may be as systemically important and vulnerable, or even more systemically important and vulnerable, than CCP members.  For instance, moving to clearing is likely to make runs on money market funds more likely even if it makes runs on dealer banks less likely.  It is not evident that this is a desirable trade-off.
• The variation margining mechanism in clearing is particularly rigid, and can create substantial demand for liquidity precisely when funding liquidity dries up.  This is what almost brought down the CME clearinghouse on the Day After Black Monday in 1987.  This is why rigid marking-to-market and variation margining can be a systemically destabilizing bug, not a stabilizing feature.
• Clearing does not eliminate interconnections between big financial firms: it reconfigures the network of connections.  Moreover, it does so in a way that is rife with wrong way risk.  As noted before, CCP members-mainly big banks-are connected via CCP default funds, and are most likely to incur losses during periods of market stress, when they are least able to afford it.

Regulators are becoming increasingly aware of these problems, and are responding by attempting to make CCPs virtually immune to failure.  But this brings me to another of my greatest hits: beware the fallacy of composition.  Yes, failure of a CCP would be catastrophic, but making one part of the financial system stronger-a CCP, for instance-does not necessarily make the system stronger.  One of the main effects of increasing the financial resources of a CCP is to redistribute credit losses from derivatives counterparties to other creditors of defaulting firms, and to redistribute scarce liquidity.   It is not necessarily the case that this redistribution makes the system stronger.

The analogy that I’ve made here, and that I make on tour, is that of the levee.  Building up the levee around a CCP reduces the likelihood that it will be inundated, but forces the financial flood elsewhere.  Again, it is not evident that it’s better for systemic stability to redistribute the water from CCP members to other parts of the financial system.

My closing number is that CCPs have been vastly oversold as a means of reducing systemic risk.  It’s virtually impossible to know what the net effects are, but it’s likely that CCP mandates reduce systemic risk under some scenarios, but increase it under others.  What’s more, the main systemic risk is not necessarily the failure of a CCP, as bad as that would be, but the spillover effects from clearing to other parts of the financial system.

That is, it’s necessary to analyze the systemic risks of clearing by analyzing the financial system as a whole.  Regulators haven’t done that, for the most part, and the debate between the banks and Terry Duffy doesn’t really do that either.  Their’s is a CCP-centric debate, and although that’s not irrelevant, it doesn’t get at the nub of the matter.  Meaning that the show must go on.

As changes in financial market regulation like Frankendodd lurch into effect (with phase two of the clearing mandate becoming effective a couple of days ago), it’s interesting to see the dawning realization about some of the implications.  Implications that I’ve discussed for several years here, or in my academic work.

One of these is the tension between the micro-prudential and macro-prudential roles of collateral.  Micro-prudentially, collateral makes sense for a lender: it increases recoveries in the event the borrower goes bust.  But collateral is much more problematic macro-prudentially, for a variety of reasons.  It can be a highly pro cyclical mechanism that intensifies the effects of financial shocks.  It can be a crisis accelerator.

Andrew Hauser of the Bank of England focuses on this tension in this speech.  Unfortunately, despite this and other evidence of growing attention to this issue, I still think it’s under appreciated and that will lead to problems down the road.

Another issue is one that I raised in my more cynical moments.  Scary thought, I know.  Specifically, I mused that one reason for the broad political support for clearing and collateral mandates, especially among government treasuries (e.g., Timmy!), is that these were a form of financial repression.  That is, a means of increasing the demand for government securities, in order to reduce interest rates and borrowing costs.  The mandates effectively require market participants to hold more government debt in their portfolios.

Bloomberg just noticed this:

New collateral rules for hedge funds, insurers and others in the $633 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market are poised to boost demand for U.S. Treasuries, potentially slowing rising yields as the Federal Reserve considers scaling back unprecedented stimulus.

Swaps traders will need to come up with $800 billion to $4.6 trillion to meet Dodd-Frank Act regulations requiring that the derivatives be backed by clearinghouses that collect upfront collateral such as cash or Treasuries, according to estimates from the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee. The regulations take effect today for the second group of firms designated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the market for interest-rate and credit-default swaps.

“This is going to be a new, very powerful engine that drives demand for Treasuries, so you have to expect it will impact yields,” said Ted Leveroni, executive director of derivatives strategy at New York-based trade-processer Omgeo LLC. “There are a lot of firms out there — I know because they’ve told me — that are concerned about having the available collateral.”

The rush for collateral may be an unintended benefit from swaps rules designed to protect against a cascade of bank failures

Um, unintended benefit for whom?  And who says its unintended?  I think it might have been quite intentional-just not acknowledged.

Now that the regulatory changes are being put into place, we’ll see how good my forecasting performance is.  Since I’ve predicted many unintended consequences, most of which are not good, y’all should hope that it’s not very good at all.  But it appears that others are making similar predictions now, at least on these two issues.

HSBC’s Gary Dunn said something at the ISDA AGM that I think is very important:

Dunn pointed out the risk characteristics of a CCP are very similar to that of collateralised debt obligations, the tranched credit products that were prevalent in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

In the CCPs default waterfall, the initial margin payments from clients and default fund contributions from clearing members are comparable to the equity or first loss and mezzanine tranches of a CDO. In other words, these are the first sources of funds that get eaten into to cover any losses.

According to Dunn, the super senior tranche (which in the case of CDOs tended to attract Triple A ratings, but often subsequently sustained losses during the credit crisis) is the additional steps the clearing house might take when all other funds are exhausted, whether it is haircutting, asking for more capitalisation from clearing members of possibly even a government bailout.

“If you start modelling the risks of a CCP as a CDO, you realise the correlation risks in a CCP aren’t at the moment fully appreciated, very much like they weren’t when we had CDOs and CDO squareds,” said Dunn.

“The probability of a CCP failing is still relatively low, but there is a reasonable probability that people or banks lose money even if a CCP doesn’t fail,” he added.

I can hear you saying: “Where have I read that before?”  Or: “When have you said that before?”  In January, 2011, now that you ask 😛

Let’s see how this relates to CCPs, and in particular to the default funds of CCPs that are the ultimate backstop of cleared contracts.  Default funds are analogous to protection written on supersenior tranches.  The collateral (margin) that firms must post to CCPs when they hold derivatives positions absorbs most of the losses due to movements in market prices.  Indeed, margins are usually set to absorb 95-99 percent of market moves.  Beyond margin, CCPs often have their own financial resources to cover the losses associated with the default of any member firm not covered by margin.  If the margin and CCP-resource elements of the CCP “waterfall” (note the similarity of terminology used to describe tranched structures and CCPs) are breached, then the members must absorb the remaining default losses, up to some pre-established commitment level.

This means that CCP members must cover defaults only in extreme circumstances, just like writers of protection on supersenior tranches must cover defaults only under extreme circumstances.  Indeed, the oft-touted features of CCPs, such as collateralization create the seniority/out-of-the-moneyness that gives rise to wrong way risk if the pre-requisite dependencies also exist.

So it seems that CCPs are potentially vulnerable to wrong way risk.  They are effectively financial structures of a type that can, given the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) dependence, give rise to a serious wrong way risk problem.  Which raises the question: are the dangerous dependencies likely to be present?  That is, are the contributors to a CCP default fund likely to be in bad financial straits just when their contributions are needed to absorb default losses? Are those that are insuring default losses (through mutualization) likely to be in dodgy condition precisely when they are most likely to have to pay off on that insurance?

This is a big deal. Wrong way risk is particularly poisonous, and a source of systemic risk in systemically important institutions like big CCPs. Policymakers have been largely oblivious to this very important problem.  I’ve been on about it for over two years, but we see how that matters.  Maybe if people like Gary Dunn start raising the alarm this issue will get the attention it deserves.

But, of course, Anat Admati, etc., will dismiss this as self-interested scaremongering by banks, and will criticize me as being some sort of tool (which she has, by the way).

I understand perfectly that such self-interested scaremongering occurs.  But I also understand that sometimes there is a wolf.  This is one of those times.

Pre-Crisis, there was very little academic writing on clearing.  Post-Crisis, with questions about the role of derivatives in creating systemic risk, and the mandating of clearing of derivatives as a means of mitigating this problem, this is changing.  This is a good thing, but unfortunately, this burgeoning academic literature is at risk of irrelevance, and worse, of being misleading, because the theoretical models of clearing are nothing like clearing as it actually is.  These models tend to focus on the mutualization of risk within CCPs.  That’s important, but as I’ll discuss in more detail below, mutualization is not the most important feature of CCPs.  Collateralization is.

I’ll just talk about a couple of papers in detail, Adam Zawadowski’s Entangled Financial Systems in the most recent RFS, and Clearing, Counterparty Risk, and Aggregate Risk by Biais, Heider, and Hoerova.

These papers have some important insights, and I don’t want to seem overly critical.  I just want to persuade scholars that the focus of these papers, and many others, is misdirected, and to suggest where they should direct their attention.

“Entangled Financial Systems” presents a model of the periodic collapse of the financial system through the channel of inter-bank derivatives exposures.  The paper is rough sledding, in part because it tackles a complicated issue, and in part because the exposition and especially the proofs are hardly paragons of clarity: I have my doubts about some of the proofs.  That said, the story is a plausible one.  Banks use fragile capital structures (short maturity debt to fund long-lived assets) to solve an agency problem.  They use derivatives to manage risk in order to protect non-pledgeable income.  Banks are at risk of blowing up due to an idiosyncratic, exogenous shock: perhaps an operational risk, like a rogue trader.  If a bank blows up, its counterparties don’t get paid in full on their derivatives.  If these counterparties don’t insure against this risk, they may fail, and so on, with the result being a daisy chain of failures.  Thus, one idiosyncratic failure can lead to the collapse of the entire system.

In the model, the original risk of a blowup is idiosyncratic and insurable.  But in equilibrium, banks don’t buy insurance against a counterparty failing because they don’t internalize the impact of their failure on their other counterparties.  Thus, there is a “market failure”: the system blows up periodically because it is privately efficient but socially inefficient not to buy counterparty insurance.

One crucial issue with the paper is that most things are, laudably, endogenized, but one crucial thing is not: each bank can trade with only two counterparties located adjacently on a circle.  The choice of counterparties is exogenously specified. This concentration of counterparty exposure is crucial in making the system vulnerable to collapse.

Zawadowski recognizes that greater diversification of exposures across counterparties reduces the fragility of the system.  Although the externality may induce insufficient diversification across counterparties (because the systemic benefits of this aren’t internalized), market participants in reality have a variety of reasons to spread their trades across many counterparties.  Meaning that real financial systems may be less fragile than in the model, with its exogenously imposed concentration of exposures.

I’m also skeptical that an idiosyncratic risk at a single institution can bring down the entire financial system.  Look at some of the rogue trader losses-Kerviel at SocGen, Adoboli at UBS.  These guys cost their banks billions-but even such huge losses didn’t lead to a financial system meltdown via any channel, including a derivatives channel.  Instead, the 2007-2008 Crisis was related to a systemic shock-a decline in US real estate prices-that hit multiple financial institutions and investors.  It’s hard to identify an actual episode where the channel analyzed in the model-an idiosyncratic shock at a single financial institution-led to a financial meltdown.  The idiosyncratic nature of the risk is important: that’s what makes the risk insurable.  The paper therefore has little to say about non-insurable risks.

Where does clearing come in?  In the paper, clearing is a form of counterparty insurance.  Mandating clearing internalizes the externality.

There are several problems here.  The first is that in the model, counterparty insurance is supplied by a continuum of investors who can diversify away the risk.  A CCP in theory can also diversify the idiosyncratic risk by mutualizing it.  But note that CCPs are voluntary cooperative arrangements among financial institutions.  If there is a gain from collective action-internalizing the externality through cooperation-why don’t financial institutions voluntarily cooperate to form CCPs?   (Though in the context of the model, sharing the risk among financial institutions is more costly than passing the risk to investors.  Still, there is a collective benefit from cooperation among the financial institutions.)  Such cooperation increases joint wealth: why don’t market participants cooperate to internalize the externality?  What stands in the way of consummating such mutually beneficial bargains?   Moreover, why does it happen in some markets, not in others?

But the mutualization issue generally is the bigger problem, and the root of my qualms about the developing literature on CCPs.  Most of the models, including the Biais et al paper, formalize CCPs as a mutual risk sharing/insurance mechanism.  (Hell, I’ve done that myself.)

But mutualization is only one of the functions of CCPs As We Know Them.  Indeed, I am increasingly leaning to the view that it is the most problematic of their functions.

CCPs operate on the “defaulter pays” principle.  That is, real world CCPs attempt to choose margins (collateral) and default fund contributions so that they almost always cover a defaulter’s losses, and that non-defaulters’ default fund contributions are seldom used to make good a defaulter’s losses.  That is, default funds are tapped-and risk mutualized-only in rare, and arguably extreme, situations.

Put differently, only tail risk is mutualized in real world CCPs, and the primary function of CCPs is to set margins so that default losses are NOT mutualized, except in extreme circumstances.  CCPs are like monoline insurance of supersenior positions well down on the default waterfall.

In the context of the _ paper, this is particularly problematic, as he shows that collateralization is an inefficient way to address the externality problem.  It ties up valuable resources that could be used to fund positive NPV projects.   This is just one problem with collateral: the “initial margin problem”, if you will.  There’s also the variation margin problem that I’ve written about over the years.

I consider the tail-risk mutualization aspect of CCPs highly problematic because of the wrong way risk problem.  Like super-senior tranches of a CDO, losses hit the default fund during systemic episodes when those exposed to the default fund (the members of the CCP) are under stress.

This all means that the academic literature, which is modeling CCPs as mutual insurers, has two big problems.

The first problem is one of positive economics.  Existing models are not able to predict (a) why clearinghouses form, and (b) why they are primarily mechanisms to net and collateralize exposures, and only mutualize extreme risks.  They do not predict why market participants sometimes cooperate to implement a “defaulter pays” model, and sometimes don’t-and why they have never implemented a fully mutualized insurance scheme.

We need models that help us understand why market participants sometimes cooperate to implement a defaulter pays mechanism, supplemented by mutualization of the extreme risks; why they sometimes don’t; and why they never fully mutualize.  That is, we need to understand why so few risks are mutualized, even when market participants choose to form CCPs.

With all due modesty, I think the answers will will be found in my original analysis from the 90s: that the usual bugbears of insurance-adverse selection and moral hazard-make it uneconomically costly to mutualize risk, and that these problems also make centralized/delegated setting of collateral levels more costly than bilateral arrangements for doing so, depending on the characteristics of the traded instruments and those trading them.

The second problem is one of normative economics and policy prescriptions derived from models.  Policy recommendations based on models of CCPs that are flatly contrary to the way CCPs really operate are highly misleading, and dangerous.  Eliding from a model that says “mutualization of risk is socially efficient but privately unprofitable” to prescribing a policy of mandating CCPs is deeply flawed, when in practice CCPs won’t mutualize risk as in the models, but will instead implement a defaulter pays model.  (NB: of late regulators are telling CCPs that their main source of concern is that CCPs will set margins too low.  That is, regulators want to make sure that CCPs really make defaulters pay.  So in practice, mandated CCPs will mutualize only extreme risks, and collateralize the rest.  Nothing like what’s in the models.)   It’s a sort of bait-and-switch.

Prudent normative policy recommendations need to be based on a model with good positive content. We need to understand much better why market participants eschew implementing the defaulter pay model before mandating it.  For that’s what clearing mandates do: they impose the implementation of defaulter pays, NOT the implementation of the kinds of mutualization in many formal models of clearing.   Given the costliness of collateral (IM-not to mention the destabilizing effects of VM), it is particularly misleading to advocate policy measures that will lead to increased collateralization based on models in which collateral plays no role whatsoever.  Again-a bait-and-switch.

In sum, I’m pleased that many talented scholars are turning their attention to clearing. Especially when they cite me 😛 But it will be a shame if these scholars go on a wild goose chase, and construct models of CCPs that are completely disjoint from real world CCPs.  This goes double when they make policy prescriptions based on their models.

We need to understand the costs and benefits of defaulter pays, with the mutualization of only extreme risks.  For that’s what CCPs are really about.  We need models that are based on an understanding of collective action issues-because non-mandated CCPs are institutions that arise from collective action.  Only when we understand these issues should we have much confidence about making policy recommendations.

I was invited to participate in a panel on clearing at ISDA’s Annual General Meeting in Singapore, but unfortunately I had to decline on account of my teaching obligations.  I therefore have to nod (vigorously0 in agreement from afar, because much of the discussion there has focused on the unintended consequences of the clearing and collateral mandates.  Consequences that I have been warning about for over four years.

One of the things that infuriated me about the advocacy for clearing (and yeah, I’m looking at you GiGi) was the claim that clearing would reduce the interconnectedness of the financial system.  I said this was patently false.  Clearing mandates would reconfigure the topology of the network of connections among financial institutions, but they would remain interconnected.  I noted that: CCPs would be vital interconnecting nodes in this new network: failure of these nodes would be catastrophic: and perhaps most importantly, CCPs could be vectors of contagion precisely during periods of financial stress.  I pointed out very early on that CCPs were repositories of wrong way risk because losses would hit default funds precisely during periods of extreme financial stress, and via that channel would bring that stress right back to the balance sheets of the banks with exposure to the default funds.  You know, when they were least able to stand the shock.  The CCP circuit connecting banks would be closed precisely when they were least able to stand the shock.

In retrospect, I seem like a Pollyanna.  Compared to people like HSBC’s Gary Dunn, anyways (Risk link-requires a subscription).  Gary went all Jeremiah at the AGM, warning of an apocalypse emanating from the clearing system.  Actually, his word was “Armageddon”:

Mandatory clearing of over-the-counter derivatives could jeopardise policy-makers’ hopes of a no-bailout financial system, according to Gary Dunn, senior manager for regulatory and risk analytics at HSBC.

Speaking at the annual general meeting of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in Singapore today, Dunn sketched out an “Armageddon scenario” resulting from the fact that the same group of international banks are all members of the majority of central counterparties (CCPs) – so, a big bank default would simultaneously hit all CCPs of which it is a member.

“What happens when one bank defaults across six CCPs? The remaining members will have to pick up the bill. Given that they are almost certainly members of the other CCPs, this will result in a default contribution bill so large it could potentially lead to their failure also,” he said.

Given the key role CCPs will play in the future financial system, Dunn argued this would ultimately result in a taxpayer bailout amounting to trillions of dollars. In his Armageddon scenario, that bailout would be preceded by the complete liquidation of CCP initial margin stocks – much of which would likely be held in the form of government debt.

“The wrong-way risk in the current CCP system is so large it could potentially lead to a sovereign default,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Interconnections between SIFIs via clearinghouses, with the fragility of these connections perhaps exacerbated by the fragmentation of CCPs (due to fragmentation along jurisdictional lines, perhaps).  Where have you seen that before?  Hint: Not in a Gensler speech.

The clearing panel also fretted abou the possibility that in its attempt to eliminate TBTF, the G-20 has just created new TBTF institutions.  Too big, and too interconnected:

Central counterparty clearers stand to be the next “too-big-to-fail” institutions and could pose an acute threat to the financial system if regulators stall on plans to manage the potential failure of a clearing entity.

At the annual general meeting of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in Singapore today, a group of panelists highlighted the lack of clarity over resolution for failed CCPs as a significant concern for the G20 objectives of eliminating systemic risk.

“There are still no resolution plans for CCPs and it is murkier now that clearing houses have moved away from the utility model,” said Athanassios Diplas, senior adviser to the ISDA board, speaking at the event earlier today.

The G20 objectives agreed in 2009 deem that no financial institution should be considered too big to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution for any institution that does fail

While regulators have been busy penning rules to deal with the problem of too-big-to-fail banks, concerns are shifting to clearing houses, and the increased concentration of risk held in them as the Dodd-Frank Act in the US and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation push an increasing number of standardised over-the-counter swaps through central counterparties.

“We’re getting very close to solving too big to fail globally for banks, but I worry that this risk could move to CCPs. I’m not convinced that we have made CCPs deeply resolvable yet – we have to do that to address systemic risk issue in a thorough way,” Wilson Ervin, vice-chairman of the group executive office at Credit Suisse told IFR.

All of which was perfectly foreseeable in 2009 when the G-20 blessed clearing as the silver bullet solution.  Foreseeable-and foreseen by some.

And the late start on addressing this issue before CCP mandates went into effect has left the world financial system in highly exposed:

While the Financial Stability Board addressed basic principals for clearing house resolution in June 2012, the issue remains on the back burner with many regulators as they continue to get to grips with a workable bank resolution regime

CCPs are the solution.  So in their wisdom governments decided to load risk onto them.  But dealing with the failure of these government-mandated SIFIs “remains on the back burner.”

Great.  That will turn out well.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  Governments have rushed into prescribing the Clearinghouse Cure, but have relegated addressing the very dangerous potential side-effect of that cure “to the back burner.”

But we’re not done!  The panel also fretted about the potentially destabilizing effects of increasing collateral and margins-both initial and variation margin (can’t find a link to this Mary Childs story: I think it is only available on Bloomberg terminals):

The numbers are large enough to be very worrisome,” Athanassios Diplas, principal at Diplas Advisors LLC and a senior adviser to the ISDA board, said on the panel. “I don’t

think anyone has trillions lying around the couch cushions.” Regulators should be careful in setting the collateral requirements given that margin calls contributed to the escalation of the financial crisis in 2008, according to Kim Taylor, president of CME Group Inc.’s clearinghouse.

Spiraling Losses

“Margin calls triggered liquidation of assets for positions, which triggered mark to market losses for other parties. It contributed to the spiral, and I think there’s the  potential for threshold-based margin” to help avoid a repeat, she said on the panel.

Margin calls exacerbating a crisis.  Whoever heard of such a thing?  Only anyone who has studied past financial panics and market crashes.  But Gensler and Timmy! and so many others assured us that collateral is only good: the more collateral the better.  Just another item on the bill of goods they sold the world-and for which we may have to pay dearly later.

Scary addendum.  At a recent Chicago Fed conference, I told someone from a major central bank that although the initial margin issue was important, it worried me that central banks and regulators seemed to be ignoring how variation margin could destabilize the system, especially with an expansion of clearing, which creates a very tightly coupled system of margin payments that must operate on a very tight and rigid time schedule.  He told me that there wasn’t as much concern about variation margin because it netted out to zero.

Seriously.  I kid you not.   It’s as stupid as the Krugman “we owe national debt to ourselves” mantra.  The payers have to find the liquidity to make the payment to the receivers.  In stress situations, they have to find a lot of liquidity precisely when liquidity dries up.  In response, they do things that impose additional stress on the system, and can break it.  Money is not transferred instantaneously and frictionlessly between those who owe and those who receive.  Those frictions-and just the timing required to recycle the payments-can cause the system to freeze up during periods of stress.

The “what, me worry?” approach to variation margin is very worrisome indeed.

But don’t worry!  Regulators will ensure that CCPs don’t engage in a race to the bottom when setting margins:

Britain’s new regulator for market operators warned clearers of tougher policing of fees to stamp out cut-throat competition that risks undermining financial stability.

. . . .

“We are not in the business of preventing competition but what’s important is the terms of that competition,” Britain’s new clearing supervisor, Edwin Schooling Latter, told Reuters in an interview.

The Bank of England became the regulator for clearing houses this month and Schooling Latter said in his first media interview he will not tolerate “a race to the bottom” such as clearers allowing banks to post too low margins against trades.

Margins refer to traders of derivatives posting government bonds or other high quality collateral to help cover any losses and the level of margins is determined by the clearing house.

“We want a world where the clearing houses compete on the quality of their risk management and not on how low their margins are,” Schooling Latter said.

Because regulators, of course, are so skilled at pricing risks.  They did such a bang-up job of it when setting capital requirements under Basel.  And by “bang-up” I mean like a train wreck.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice metaphor seems more apt by the day.  Regulators and legislators have cast the spell to bring massive CCPs to life, but cannot control the consequences-which can be dangerous indeed.  They intended to solve one problem, but they have created others, and are scrambling to deal with them.

The clearing and reporting requirements of Frankendodd have barely gone into effect, and the unintended consequences are already beginning to pile up.  Who coulda seen that coming, eh?

Even I couldn’t have made up the bestest of them.  Namely, as a result of the SEC’s bizarre portfolio margining rule, ICE has said that it will not clear single-name CDS.  You know, the weapons of financial mass destruction that were supposed to be the reason for needing a clearing mandate in the first place.  So ICE won’t clear the poster children for the clearing mandate.  Like I say: you cannot make up this stuff.

From Risk:

Ice Clear Credit has shelved plans to clear single-name credit default swaps (CDSs) for clients of its member firms, as a result of a new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) policy on portfolio margining. Under the terms of that policy, circulated late on March 8 – the last working day before the start of mandatory clearing for CDX index trades in the US – clients would be able to benefit from risk offsets between cleared index and single-name contracts, but the vast majority would be charged twice the margin calculated by a central counterparty (CCP).

The move sparked a furious response from some buy-side firms and has now dissuaded Ice’s CDS clearing house from offering the service at all.

“Last Friday, the SEC issued a temporary approval requiring broker-dealer futures commission merchants (FCMs) to charge two times the initial margin requirement of the CCPs. This was unfortunate, so we made a decision, based upon that unexpected development – news of which we received very late in the day on Friday – and based upon input from many clients, that it would be better not to offer single-name clearing under those conditions than to make single names available,” Peter Barsoom, chief operating officer of Ice Clear Credit, told attendees at the Futures Industry Association (FIA) annual conference in Florida last week.

The SEC policy gives temporary approval for an FCM to allow cross-margining if it collects 150% of the margin required by a CCP, but only if the client has “virtually no credit risk”. For all other clients, 200% must be collected on positions held in the portfolio margin account, which participants say would apply to most buy-side firms.

Portfolio margining across asset classes is theoretically beneficial, but practically dicey due to the instability of correlations, which often result in positions being undermargined during conditions of market stress.  And yes, individual name CDS and indices can diverge, again particularly during periods of financial stress.  But a portfolio consisting of a position in an index and offsetting positions in single names (especially names in the index) is less risky than either leg on its own.  This means that it is possible to improve capital efficiency while holding risk level constant by giving margining offsets for portfolio benefits.  But noooooooooooo.  In its infinite wisdom, SEC has decided to punitively margin these portfolios.  This reduces substantially the benefits of clearing individual name CDS, so ICE says to hell with it.

Again, the irony is almost too much.  The risks of single-name CDS were constantly invoked to justify the clearing mandate.  Those arguments were largely bogus, but regardless, due to regulations adopted to implement the mandate, single-name CDS will not be cleared for the foreseeable future.  Yay!

This is yet another example of the perverse effects of regulatory setting of margin levels.  I’ve been saying this so much I’m blue in the face: you could call me the smurfwiseprofessor.   For the zillionth time: regulatory margin setting is a form of price control, risk price control specifically.  Price controls never work.  Worse than that, price controls always lead to distortions.  First with futurization and now with portfolio margining, we are seeing these distortions appearing, big time.  And they’ll likely only get worse, when margins on non-cleared swaps are finalized.

Regulators have neither the information or incentives to set these prices right.  They bewail regulatory arbitrage, but their attempts at price control are the destined to set off a regulatory arbitrage land rush.

Sheesh.

But it gets better!  Even the seemingly banal task of reporting swap trades is overwhelming the CFTC.  According to Scott O’Malia, they cannot find a London Whale in a phone booth:

Dodd-Frank Act derivatives rules are failing to give regulators a full picture of the swaps market and wouldn’t help them detect a loss similar to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s London Whale trades, according to Commodity Futures Trading Commission member Scott O’Malia.

Swap-trade data the agency has been receiving since the end of last year from repositories including the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. is inadequate to identify large positions and have overwhelmed government computer systems, O’Malia said in a speech prepared for a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association conference in Phoenix.

The data “is not usable in its current form,” said O’Malia, 45, one of the agency’s five commissioners. “The problem is so bad that staff have indicated that they currently cannot find the London Whale in the current data files.”

. . . .

Different swap dealers and trading counter-parties are using their own reporting formats because the government failed to specify standards, O’Malia said.

“It means that for each category of swap identified by the 70-plus reporting swap dealers, those swaps will be reported in 70-plus different data formats because each swap dealer has its own proprietary data format it uses in its internal systems,” he said. “The permutations of data language are staggering. Doesn’t that sound like a reporting nightmare?”

The CFTC’s computer systems are failing to handle the incoming data. “None of our computer programs load this data without crashing,” O’Malia said.

This should be no surprise.  The issues with CFTC computers particularly.  The GAO issued reports in the ’80s ripping the agency for its IT dysfunctions.

Frankendodd has barely come to life, and it is already wreaking havoc.  I am sure there are more good times to come!

And I am totally, totally sure that Obamacare will work just as well.  No prospect for unintended consequences there!

I laughed out loud when I read this paragraph from a Risk Magazine article about futurisation in the energy markets:

Top CFTC officials [GiGi? Is that you?] as well as members of Congress who supported Dodd-Frank [that’s Frankendodd around here, buddy] have repeatedly said the law was not aimed at physical end users of derivatives.  But if the the flight towards futures causes liquidity elsewhere in the market to dry up, end-users might have no choice but to fall in line.

Look: Elvis Costello’s “My aim is true” is definitely not the theme song of regulators and legislators in the US, or anywhere for that matter.  A 16 year old, hopped up, Afghan jihadi sprayin’ and prayin’ with his AK on full auto is more discriminating in his targeting than most regulators, and regulations.  Unintended consequences-AKA collateral damage-are the rule, rather than the exception with regulations.  This goes N-fold for monstrosities like Frankendodd.

Frankendodd is just starting its rampage.  The energy derivatives markets-and end-users in them-are only the first victims.

So when a regulator or legislator says that a particular reg or law isn’t aimed at you, don’t take comfort: take cover; there will be incoming.   We’re not talking Sergeant York or Annie Oakley behind the trigger here. More like Blind Lemon Jefferson.

Frankendodd runs hundreds of pages.  The regulations written to bring it to life run to thousands more.  Every word on every page has the potential to wreak havoc: hell, apropos the position limit case, even the commas matter.

Case in point, the CFTC’s proposed rule on protection of customer funds, most particularly Section 1.22.  Some of the relevant language:

The Commission proposes to amend § 1.22 by clarifying that the prohibition on the FCM’s use of one futures customer’s funds to margin or secure the positions of another futures customer, or to extend credit to another person, applies at all times.

. . . .

Further, the Commission is proposing language providing a clear mechanism to ensure compliance with this prohibition, which is to require an FCM to maintain residual interest in segregated accounts in an amount which exceeds the sum of all margin deficits for futures customers.

This is very inside baseball, but has seismic implications.

The basic thing is that some customers are late in meeting margin calls.  This gives rise to margin deficits.  Under the traditional omnibus model used in futures markets for donkey years, futures commission merchants (brokers-“FCMs”) can cover customers’ margin deficits with the margins of other customers.  Effectively, customers lend one another money to address the timing issues that the rigorous mark-to-market and variation margin processes inevitably create.  Moreover, the FCM is ultimately on the hook to cover the losses of a defaulted customer.  The FCM’s customers can lose only if there is a default by a customer that the FCM can’t cover (resulting in an FCM default).

That is, customers effectively lend to one another, and thus there is “fellow customer risk”-a solvent customer can lose as a result of the default of another customer. The CFTC rule is intended to eliminate this risk.

Problem: the risk can’t really be eliminated, merely shifted around.  Related problem: the likely reaction to this attempt to shift risk.

The CFTC seems to want to shift the risk to the FCMs: the “residual interest” language means that the FCM has to have enough of its own money on hand to cover any margin deficits.  This will require the FCM to hold substantial precautionary balances, because (a) the magnitude of margin deficits is likely to be quite variable, and particularly will be large in the aftermath of a big price move (that can’t be predicted in advance), and (b) there are serious penalties to being undersegregated.  Alternatively, FCMs are likely to require customers to post margins far in excess of exchange margin levels, thereby reducing the likelihood that any customer’s account will have a margin deficit, and the amount of residual interest the FCM must hold to cover any such deficits.

Either way, there will be a substantial increase in the amount of cash tied up, and the needs for customers and FCMs to have access to contingent liquidity.  The omnibus model was an effective way for customers to supply liquidity to, and obtain liquidity from, other customers.  Yes, there are risks, but there are corresponding benefits: the near universality of the omnibus model in futures markets, and its survival for decades, provides compelling evidence that the benefits far exceed the costs.

But apparently that’s not good enough for GiGi and the Gang.

The clearing and collateral mandates-combined with Basel III and other regulatory measures-are already requiring substantial increases in the amount of collateral-liquid assets-that will be tied up to support derivatives trades.  This will just add to that.  And insofar as being a customer protection mechanism: uhm, customers will pay for it.  Don’t act as if your are doing them a big favor. (Raising the question if its so valued by customers, why hasn’t some FCM adopted voluntarily what the CFTC wants to impose by fiat?  If it’s so great, customers would flock to firms offering that model.)

It also comes at a terrible time for the FCM industry.  The economics of the business are terrible.  ZIRP has blown a hole in a major source of revenue, volume is down sharply, and competition is intense.  A recent Celent study details the carnage:

“The leading FCMs in the US are struggling with falling revenues and profits,” saysAnshuman Jaswal, PhD, Senior Analyst with Celent’s Securities & Investments Group and author of the report. “This puts them in an unenviable position, especially when we consider the overall impact and related costs of various regulatory implementations taking place in the next couple of years.”

Another data point: SocGen just wrote down its investment in big FCM Newedge.  This is not a thriving industry, and ladling more costs onto it won’t help it one bit.

The ostensible purpose of this new regulation is to prevent another MF Global or Peregrine situation.

Seriously?

MF Global broke every rule in the book about segregation and the treatment of customer money.  Peregrine’s owner ran a huge fraud for 20 years. So creating more rules for troubled or criminal FCMs to break will help?  If the CFTC or SROs couldn’t enforce the old rules and thereby prevent losses of customer funds, why should we expect they’ll do any better with the new ones?

It’s also hard to see how these rules, if they had been in place, would have prevented either the Peregrine or MFG situations.  Furthermore, there are other ways of attacking the exceptional-and MFG and Peregrine were exceptional-without imposing crushing burdens on the ordinary day-to-day operation of the markets, FCMs and their customers.  For instance, the Peregrine fraud could not have continued if Peregrines regulator (the NFA) had direct electronic access to the firm’s accounts, thereby preventing Wasendorf from altering the paper statements he sent on to regulators to cover up his fraud.  Hell, in the MFG case, having more excess margin in customer accounts would have just increased the money that Corzine could have tapped to cover the company’s losses and own margin calls: it is just that excess margin that disappeared somewhere, somehow.  I would further note that since an FCM is most likely to be tempted to get at customer funds when it is in financial jeopardy (which is what happened with MF), adding to its financial burdens could create more problems than it solves.

The cost-benefit analysis the CFTC advanced in support of the rule is just the kind of joke I’ve come to expect.  This is actually a problem that is amenable to calculation.  Collect data on the distribution of customer margin deficits under current rules.  Figure out the 99.9th percentile of this distribution.  (Importantly, condition this distribution on market conditions-find out what that percentile is during very volatile periods.)    Given the rigor of the rule, it is plausible to assume that additional funds equal to this 99.9th percentile will have to be held by customers, FCMs, or both will be held to ensure compliance.  Calculate the return on this sum lost because customers and FCMs are required to hold low-yielding assets in order to comply with the rule.  That’s one component of the cost.

Another cost is the additional operational cost required to ensure compliance.  This will not be trivial: indeed, one reason FCMs might require substantial increases in customer margins is to reduce the operational burdens required to maintain compliance.

One cost that is important is hard to quantify.  As I’ve written repeatedly, spikes in liquidity needs during periods of market stress can be systemically destabilizing.  This rule will: (a) restrict one vital source of liquidity, namely, intracustomer loans; (b) result in far more liquid assets being tied up in brokerage accounts; (c) lead to increases in liquidity demand during periods of high volatility, as FCMs will either have to hold more liquid assets, or will force customers to hold more excess margin, during high volatility periods in order to maintain compliance (i.e., the 99.9 percentile is much bigger during high volatility periods, requiring more margin to meet this threshold-the distribution of liquidity demand spikes caused by this could be calculated); and (d) result in position unwinds by those unwilling to incur the cost of the elevated margins.  All of these effects are pro-cyclical, and tend to exacerbate market instability/volatility.  Liquidity problems are what create or exacerbate crises.  Derivatives market “reforms” have already imposed substantial liquidity burdens: this will only add another.  That is systemically risky.

Benefits?  Uhm, hard to ascertain.  As noted above, the rule is ill-suited to address either a Peregrine or MFG problem, even though those are the examples the CFTC repeatedly invokes in their support.  Moreover, it must be noted that reducing the amount of loss arising from the default of fellow customers is not necessarily a benefit.  This is primarily a transfer of wealth from one party to another.  The relevant issue is whether one risk sharing rule is better than another.

This is another example of the pernicious effects of attempts to “fix” high profile problems such as MF Global and Peregrine.  In response to truly extraordinary episodes, we get “fixes” that (a) don’t really do anything to address the problems they are supposed to be fixing, and (b) impose substantial burdens on the ordinary operations of the markets, operations that have gone on swimmingly for decades under the old way of doing business, thank you very much.

As a rule of thumb, I think it wise to be very suspicious of rules designed to prevent recurrence of an extreme event or events.  That is especially true in this case.   Another example of all pain, no gain.

Is that the CFTC’s motto now?

Hint: collateral crunches are not an ab exercise.  Instead, regulators and legislators around the world are waking up to the reality of what they have wrought: that the regulations that they blithely decided to impose on the derivatives markets are likely to have severe adverse consequences.  Specifically, Europeans have awakened to the fact that clearing and collateral mandates will be extremely burdensome on firms that use derivatives to manage risk, but who pose no real systemic threat.  Thus, a committee of the European Parliament has voted to send clearing regulations back to the European Commission for reconsideration.  There is a realization that a “collateral crunch” is impending as a result of these various regulations:

This has led to talk of a “collateral crunch”, with most central counterparties accepting only government bonds or cash as collateral, assets that may not be readily available. This is more restrictive than at present, with corporate bonds and even equities often accepted as collateral in uncleared bilateral deals, if lodged in sufficient quantity.

The problem may be particularly acute for mutual funds, as an equity or corporate bond fund will simply not possess anything it can use as collateral. Instead it may have to use the securities lending or repo markets to secure suitable assets.

But many pension funds will also be hit. As Mr Haines points out, even the index-linked government bonds that pension funds do tend to hold in abundance are not generally accepted as collateral by central counterparties, even if conventional bonds issued by the same governments are.

Estimates of the cost of using the repo market to access the necessary collateral range from 50 basis points of a pension fund’s assets to several hundred basis points, Mr Haines adds. Alternatively, pension funds may feel pressured to alter their asset allocation so they do have sufficient in-house collateral.

Totally unpredictable, right?  Uhm, not really.

I find it particularly amusing that virtually every article on the effects of Frankendodd and Emir bewail the “unintended consequences.”  A million pardons, but that was a theme here on SWP, and in various presentations I made, before Frankendodd and Emir were actually adopted.  Unintended, but eminently foreseeable-and totally ignored.

The recent angst focuses on initial margin: the amount of capital that has to be tied up to support derivatives positions from the moment they are initiated.  Given that collateral is costly, the large increases in initial margin will require derivatives users to choose between continuing to use them to manage risk, but obtain lower returns, or to eschew derivatives and live with greater risk.

The benefit received in exchange for this very real cost?  Given that many entities so affected pose no systemic risk, it’s quite difficult to identify any gain.

Not that initial margin is unimportant, but the focus on it distracts attention from what I believe to be the true systemic risk inherent in clearing and collateral mandates: the contingent needs for liquidity to make variation margin payments.  Big price moves lead to big variation margin flows.  These will tend to occur when markets are stressed and liquidity becomes scarce.  Thus, the need to make variation margin payments will exacerbate stresses on the market, especially will stress liquidity supply mechanisms.  Given that financial crises are, typically, liquidity crises, this is a major systemic problem.

So by all means pay attention to the drag that the dramatic increase in initial margin requirements will impose.  This is a drag that will be experienced day after weary day.  But do not overlook the truly dangerous unintended consequence of the clearing and collateral mandates in Frankendodd and Emir.  The stress that these mandates will put on liquidity supply mechanisms at the precise instant that these mechanisms are at risk of failure.

What could go wrong?

I say again: regulate/legislate in haste, repent at leisure. The seeds for the next crisis are being sown in the alleged attempts to prevent a recurrence of the last one.  Legislative and regulatory generals fighting the last war.