Streetwise Professor

The Bank of England’s most recent Financial Stability Report includes an extended discussion of the various systemic risks posed by CCPs.  For SWP readers, the analysis will be familiar.  It focuses on the margin mechanism as a channel of contagion, procyclicality, and wrong way risk.  It emphasizes the risks arising from the pivotal role of sovereign debt in the clearing system.  Adverse shocks to sovereign debt prices can initiate the destabilizing margin cycle.  Moreover, given the correlation between the financial condition of CCP members and sov debt prices, sovereigns are a source of wrong way risk in teh system

Recognizing the very real possibility for a CCP failure, the BoE recommends the implementation of a resolution regime for CCPs to ensure that the market can continue to operate even if a CCP exhausts its financial resources.  I recommended this in  my ISDA white paper.

So I concur wholeheartedly with this BoE analysis.  But as was the case with Bernanke’s warnings about the systemic risks of CCPs, I ask: where the hell was the BoE  when everyone was drinking the clearing KoolAid?  Some of this realism would have been much more constructive before Frankendodd, the G-20 clearing commitments, and other moves to mandate clearing around the world.   Right now, the BoE, the Fed, and more than a few financial journalists remind me of someone who stood on the platform waving goodbye to a departing train, but are now running down the track screaming that its brakes are defective.

So regulators are no scrambling to figure out how to buttress the much expanded clearing system against its inherent vulnerabilities.  Would that as much thought and effort had been expended to identify, anticipate, and mitigate these vulnerabilities before regulation and legislation imposed such heavy reliance on CCPs.

Clearing was mandated in haste.  Unfortunately, given the current tumult in world financial markets, we may not have the luxury of mitigating the risks of these mandates at leisure.

A while back–summer of 2010, if memory serves–I predicted that any CFTC position limit rule would be the subject of legal challenge.  My prediction was that someone would argue that the CFTC did not have the statutory authority to promulgate position limits because it had not made a finding that there was indeed excessive speculation that made it necessary to impose limits.  Subsequently, a DC Appeals Court decision that overturned an SEC regulation due to a failure to carry out an adequate cost-benefit analysis, made it clear that  this would be a major vulnerability for a variety of CFTC rulemakings, position limits among them. The day after the post-Dodd-Frank position limit rule was passed, speaking at a JP Morgan commodity conference, I said a suit challenging the rule would be “coming soon to a courthouse near you.”

Well, soon means about 6 weeks.  Today ISDA and SIFMA filed suit in DC contesting the position limit rule.   These organizations allege that the CFTC:

— Erred in concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act required it to establish position limits without first determining whether they were even necessary;

— Failed to present a reasoned analysis or consider all evidence in setting position limits;

— Failed to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis as required by law;

— Conducted a flawed rulemaking process that prevented commenters from meaningfully participating.

I imagine that others–such as the CME and maybe ICE–will follow suit, as it were.  I also expect that other rules will also wind up in court.  The position limit rule is probably the most vulnerable because of the statutory language about excessive speculation, but all of the rules the CFTC has passed are on extremely shaky on cost-benefit analysis grounds.

Frankendodd is under some pressure in Congress, but given the Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, nothing is going to happen on that front.  Instead, pieces of it will be chipped away in court.  Position limits could well be the first chip off the block.  Which is as it should be.

There are many misconceptions about the CME’s responsibilities in the MF Global situation, and the implications of this situation for the CME’s longstanding claims that no customer has lost money as a result of a clearing member default.  These misconceptions are epitomized by this Sun Times article:

CME owns the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade and the New York Mercantile Exchange, where much MF Global business took place. It legally clears, or guarantees, the trading on its markets and often boasts that no customer has ever lost money because a trading firm failed.

That more than 100-year record may be in jeopardy with MF Global, one of the largest brokerages on the Chicago and New York commodity markets. Former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chairman Jon Corzine led the firm but made a disastrous investment in European debt.

The claim is true, and regardless of what happens with MF it will remain true.  The clearing guarantee is not in play here.

If clearing firm A defaults, customers of clearing firms B, C, etc., will get paid as long as the clearinghouse is solvent.  That has always been the case in the past, and it is true now.

It is possible that customers can lose money under the omnibus account system employed in the US, if there is a default on A’s customer account, and A cannot cover it, then A’s customers bear some of the losses.  As an example of this, the London customers of Griffin trading lost money when that firm went bust in 1999: no US customer customer lost.  (Customers of a COMEX member, Volume Investors, did lose when that firm went under).

There was no default in either MF Global’s house or customer accounts, so the clearinghouse guarantee never came into play.  So the Sun Times account–like many others–is fundamentally misleading.

Moreover, 60 percent of customer margin associated with open positions was transferred to other clearing members.  Most of the missing money in question, from what has been reported, was customer money on deposit at MF Global but not margin associated with open positions.  (That is the case with two MF customers I know personally.)  The CME clearinghouse guarantee has nothing to do with that money.

CME has raised the amount that it is willing to commit to cover any shortfalls from the bankruptcy trustee’s distribution of cash to customers.  This is not the CME’s legal obligation, but is, as I said in an FT article a couple of weeks ago, an indication of the importance of this situation to CME’s reputation.

CME will be subject to scrutiny primarily for its role as the MFer’s Designated Self-Regulatory Organization (and hence responsible for auditing it) prior to the firm’s rapid implosion.  Moreover, as Jeff Carter (a one-time CME floor trader and board member) writes, CME has not done itself any favors with its handling of the “public perception of the crisis.” (Though I have also heard that CFTC is attempting to control what the exchanges–CME and ICE–are saying.  As well it might, as it will also come under considerable scrutiny.)

A big question in my mind is why Corzine isn’t getting the Madoff treatment from the Feds and the media.  He has been called to testify in front of a House committee.  I wonder if he’ll invoke the amendment that comes right after the one about unreasonable searches and seizures.  But it is amazing to me how little critical coverage he has received.  Especially given the bad press that rich bankers are getting these days.

Oh, I forgot.  He’s a progressive Dem in good standing.  What was I thinking?  My bad.

So there are two major things wrong with coverage of the MFer’s tale.  The first is that the role of the CME’s guarantee to its customers is being misrepresented with some regularity–including by the home field rag.  The second is that the most likely culprit–and certainly the person ultimately responsible for the firm’s collapse, and anything that occurred as the firm crashed and burned–is all but invisible.

Back in the summer I argued that sovereign CDS are acutely vulnerable to wrong way risk.  Indeed, the problem is so severe as to call into doubt the viability of these instruments.  From today’s Dow Jones News Wires:

But some market participants said that, if risk aversion from Europe spirals out of control and credit markets freeze, a large firm could fail to meet its obligations in a credit-default swap, setting off a chain reaction that threatens to destabilize the global banking system.

They are urging closer scrutiny of banks’ gross sovereign CDS positions and of the interconnectedness of the banking system.

“When there is a high degree of correlation between the underlying risk and that of the hedge counterparty [in this case, the sovereign and a bank selling CDS], can you rely on a payment from your protection seller?” asked Joyce Frost, partner at Riverside Risk Advisors LLC, a derivatives consultancy.

The correlation may be so strong, she said, that if Italy, for example, continues to deteriorate, the protection purchased from a highly correlated European bank may not be worth as much as originally thought. The value of that hedged position would be worth less than if the CDS were written by an uncorrelated counterparty–a U.S. or Canadian dealer, for example.

This is a phenomenon market experts call “wrong-way risk.”

Katy Burne goes on to argue that “[t]he lack of sovereign CDS clearing makes individual institutions more vulnerable to a messy default.”  This is fundamentally incorrect.  Clearing does not make wrong way risk go away because banks are CCP members, and would be on the hook in the event that a big loss on sovereign CDS caused a bank/clearing member to default.  In particular, the senior tranche of a CDO-like nature of CCP default funds makes them acutely vulnerable to wrong way risk.

Wrong way risk is intrinsic to sovereign CDS.  If big sovereigns are at risk of defaults that would cause payouts on CDS–heck, if even sovereigns that seem small in the scheme of things, like Greece, are in trouble–banks are likely to be in trouble.  The correlation is a fundamental feature of the instrument.  Whether banks are the ultimate counterparties in bilateral trades or via CCPs is immaterial: the problem is there.

The latest estimates of the shortfall in MF Global customer accounts have doubled, to $1.2 billion:

The trustee overseeing the wind-down of MF Global Holdings Ltd.’s brokerage said more than $1.2 billion in customer funds could be missing from the failed firm, more than double the original estimate of missing cash.That estimate of missing funds represents funds that should have been segregated in stand-alone customer accounts by MF Global in accordance with regulations, the trustee said.

Apparently the issue is that MF held about $600 million of its own capital in customer seg accounts to cover potential customer defaults (which as a clearing broker it is on the hook for).  Add that $600 million to the $600 million original shortfall estimate (which apparently was made without taking into account the MF Global capital held in the accounts), and you get to the $1.2 billion figure.

Already ugly.  Getting uglier.

When financial/trading firms implode, they do so with incredible speed. A lot of money sloshes in and out of them every day, and in the desperation and chaos of the implosion controls break down–and are sometimes deliberately broken down.  In the scramble for cash to meet incompatible demands from importuning creditors and clients, a lot of money can go out the door.  This isn’t like the collapse of a manufacturing firm with assets like machines and buildings that are hard to turn into cash quickly, and which keeps little cash on hand.  Firms like MF have mainly liquid assets, and handle large quantities of cash and liquid assets for others.  Thus, there is a much greater risk of illicit transfers in collapse of this type of firm than in others.

Interestingly, this is one reason why financial firms have fragile capital structures.  If they didn’t, it would be quite easy for managers to misappropriate assets.  Capital structure fragility and the associated potential for runs are a disciplinary device: customers and funders who suspect misappropriation can run, and destroy the firm in a trice.

But this disciplinary device is imperfect, as are all such devices.  Sometimes managers misbehave, and these firms implode quickly as customers and funders flee. We are witnessing exactly that with MF Global.

The last 10 days have seen events that illustrate the idiotic alpha and omega of the Obama administration’s energy policy.  These tell you everything you need to know about its complete inversion of priorities, and its utter incomprehension of how energy, markets, and government work–or don’t.

On the one hand, there is the Congressional testimony of Energy Secretary Steven Chu defending the $500 million plus Solyndra debacle, news about a Kennedy company with equally illusory prospects receiving a federal loan guarantee almost three times as large, and reports that 80 percent of Department of Energy “green energy” loans went to Obama donors.

On the other, there is the administration’s delay in approving the Keystone XL pipeline, and yesterday’s announcement that the USDA was imposing a six month delay on auctioning shale gas properties in the Wayne National Forest in Ohio to further “study” the surface impacts of hydraulic fracking.

Note the contrast.

On the one hand: An unshakable commitment to throw vast sums of money extracted by coercion from American citizens at delusional, patently uneconomic projects that will produce little energy, and which just oh-so-coincidentally (It is a coincidence!  Really! Chu says so!) happen to be owned by Obama donors.

On the other hand: Using every regulatory power available to stymie the investment of private capital freely provided in economically viable projects that will produce large amounts of energy now and into the future, pursuant to highly speculative–and dubious–theories about the environmental impact of these projects.

The mental vacuum in which these environmental impacts are conceived is beyond belief.  Are trade-offs considered?  Surely you jest.  In the case of Keystone, for instance, the administration did not give the slightest inkling that it had considered the George Bailey question: What would happen if Keystone was not born?  Would there be a greater reliance on the use of seaborne oil transportation, which is far more environmentally risky than pipeline transport?  Would it result in greater off-shore oil production in the Gulf?  (You’d think that the Mocondo experience would make that a particularly salient issue to an allegedly environmentalist administration.  You’d be wrong.)  Would it result in the building of a pipeline in other environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., the Canadian Rockies), over which the oil would be transported and then put on environmentally riskier tankers?

In other words, lavishing billions on unicorn fantasies flogged by political and ideological allies, and throwing regulatory roadblock after regulatory roadblock at real, viable projects.  And both the lavishing and the blocking based on literally incredible environmental theories.

In Federalist #70, Alexander Hamilton extolled “energy in the executive.”  In the past days we have seen an executive devoting all its energies, positive and negative, to pushing some projects that will produce no energy, and to thwarting others that will.   An energetic twofer: they will make us poorer, by making energy more expensive, and they will not help the environment–and will quite plausibly make the environment worse.

That kind of energy we can very much do without.

Or you’ve been working to devise US energy policy over the last couple of decades.  But I repeat myself: the latter group is a proper subset of the former.

I am referring to articles running in the official house organs of the conventional liberal wisdom, the WaPo and the NYT, which confirm the obvious: government subsidies for energy, and particularly “alternative” energy and renewables, have proved to be a dreary litany of failure after expensive failure.

These failures were predictable–and in fact predicted.  But the predictions have been ignored.  For decades, as the WaPo article points out in excruciating detail.  Good money has been thrown after bad which had been thrown after worse.  These decisions have been driven by political economy rather than economic calculation.  If something needs a subsidy, that means it costs too much for the value it produces.  Yes, there can be circumstances in which there is some value that is not internalized by the producer, in which a subsidy may theoretically be justified.  But as the historical record makes abundantly clear, that’s not what drives how subsidies are allocated: they come out of the political sausage grinder, and it is politics and political connections that turn the crank.

Whatever you think about ExxonMobil, they deserve credit for not buying into the “beyond petroleum” moonshinery of BP and some other supermajors in the last decade.  During the Bush years, XOM CEOs Lee Raymond and Rex Tillerson steadfastly refused to commit capital into renewables and alternative energy, and resisted playing the subsidy game: they were unabashedly an oil company, and didn’t pretend otherwise.  They had seen the boondoggles of the 1970s–remember Synfuels?–and didn’t want to squander valuable capital on similar boondoggles in the new millennium.  Unfortunately, Congress and two administrations–particularly the current one–haven’t been quite so perceptive.   As a result tens of billions of dollars have been wasted, and wasted predictably.

Ironically, in financial markets positive feedback loops are typically a very negative thing.  Self-reinforcing spirals in tightly coupled systems like the financial markets are usually downward spirals.

Margining and collateral mechanisms are the most important positive feedback mechanism in financial markets.  AIG and MF Global are two examples of how these mechanisms turn high flying financial firms into smoking holes in the ground.  They suffer losses, counterparties demand more collateral, that puts further stress on the firm, they lose customers, counterparties demand even more capital, and before you know it–impact with the ground at high speed.

Procyclicality of margin can work at the level of the market too.  We are seeing the first signs of that with respect to Italy today.  LCH.Clearnet SA (the French arm, and not RepoClear) raised margins on Italian government debt today.  This will tend to induce some sales of leveraged Italian bond positions, which will reduce prices further.  Similarly, increasing haircuts will tend to reduce liquidity, which will also tend to put downward pressure on prices.  Lower prices and lower liquidity put further pressure to raise haircuts.

So–lookout below!  The spiral has begun.  Keep eyes on RepoClear.  I imagine it will be under tremendous pressure to avoid jacking up repo margins.  And who knows, since the 450 basis point  margin raising trigger* is based on the spread over an average of German, French, and some other countries’ debt, maybe RepoClear won’t have to raise margins on Italian bonds because French yields are rising too, due in large part to French banks’ holding of $400 billion in Italian bonds.  The looking glass world of Europe . . . .

Another comment, following on the previous post.  There will be tremendous pressure on CCPs to accept riskier collateral in the clearing mandate world.  Sovereign debt has been a primary asset for margining purposes, and the assumption has been that this collateral is low risk.  But we now know that is a fiction.

Pressure to expand collateral pools, combined with the risk that said collateral can decline in value, and precipitously, creates another positive feedback mechanism.  Markdowns in collateral held at CCPs (or indirectly, via collateral transformation services) will induce fire sale liquidations of margined positions, or of other assets in order to raise cash to offset the decline in the value of collateral.

Geithner, Gensler and others have touted collateral as the elixir for all derivatives market ills.  No.  In some circumstances the elixir is really a deadly poison.  Positive feedback mechanisms destabilize financial markets, and collateral mechanisms are among the most important sources of positive feedback in these markets.  We are moving to a regime in which more collateral is being required, collateral mechanisms are being made more rigid and less flexible (e.g., reducing hypothecation) but the supply of safe collateral is contracting–or at least not growing commensurately with the demand.  This will be a major source of fragility in the system, and one that has been built into the system all in the name of making it more robust.  Another gift from the sorcerer’s apprentices.

* The term “trigger” is hardly comforting in this context.

Last week the Basel Committee released its revised proposal on capital requirements for exposures to CCPs.  It made a few tweaks to its earlier proposal, which had attracted considerable criticism.  The critics are not mollified, and some new criticisms have been directed at the new version.

I won’t deconstruct the new proposal in detail.  I’ll just focus on a few of the high level issues, all in the way of reiterating a broader point that I’ve raised previously.

One criticism of the new proposal is that it imposes punitive burdens on client clearing, and is therefore inconsistent with the stated goal of encouraging the movement of more derivatives transactions to CCPs.  Against this, it is claimed that the new rules facilitate portability of client accounts between clearing firms.  So, you won’t be able to find someone willing to clear for you in the first place, but you’ll be able to move your account easily.  Or something.

The allegedly punitive treatment of client clearing, combined with the capital and margin burdens placed on non-cleared trades, will tend to reduce end user hedging with derivatives.  This is clearly an undesirable outcome, and will induce end users to devise alternative means (and in particular, to adjust their capital structures) in order to achieve the same objectives as they currently do through derivatives.  These alternatives  are likely to be more costly than derivatives.  Moreover, they will still result in the creation of counterparty risk (or credit risk).  From a systemic perspective, it is not clear that the ultimate effect will be to reduce the amount of credit risk, or improve its allocation.

The new draft reduces slightly the capital charges for default fund contributions, but the treatment is still sufficiently tough to make it likely that CCPs will jack up margins to avoid incurring the high capital charges associated with exposures in excess of the CCPs “hypothetical capital.”  Maybe this is precisely the intent, because the idea that derivatives trades should be massively collateralized is a matter of faith among many regulators.  But demanding high collateral can lead to many adverse effects, including less hedging, the utilization of riskier assets to pay initial margins, the substitution of other forms of leverage, including fragile repo-based collateral transformation services, and the engineering of securities that can be used as collateral (either directly with a CCP or indirectly via a collateral transformation) but which are loaded with systematic tail risk.

The proposals retain the very crude distinctions between risk exposures.  Capital charges across exposures do not vary sufficiently to account for their different risk characteristics.

All of these issues point out the basic problem with Basel capital requirements.  These rules are essentially price controls.  They cannot–metaphysically–get the prices right.  The way the risks are priced via capital charges will affect resource and risk allocation decisions.  Those subject to the rules will have the information and incentive to figure out how to minimize their impact, and will tend to load up on risks that are underpriced and take too few of the overpriced risks.  Many of the endogenous responses to the capital charges will occur in unexpected ways and places, and the connection between these responses and the rules will often be highly indirect and difficult to identify.

But the big problem is that since everybody is facing the same distorted price signals, they will tend to make correlated mistakes.  This increases the vulnerability of the system.  That’s why Basel is faulty generally.  The CCP capital charges are just a particular example of that.  They are intended to reduce systemic risk, but they largely ignore how the system will respond to the rules, thereby creating new vulnerabilities.

Just step back and look at what is going on now in Europe.  One of the basic principles of Basel II was that sovereign debt was safe.  Another was that mortgages were safe.  Financial Crisis I exploded the latter belief.  Financial Crisis II is demolishing the former.  But the favorable capital charges accorded these investments encouraged the supply and demand for both.

If you haven’t noticed, this is not working out well.  The CCP capital charges will have far reaching effects on how much risk there is in the system, and where it resides. The necessary crudeness of the capital rules, their inability to price different risks in a discriminating way, and the endogenous behavioral responses that they induce not just in clearing but throughout the interconnected financial markets, will create new systematic errors and vulnerabilities that won’t work out to well either.

The conceit of these rules is that they are pricing systemic risk.  How is that even possible when those formulating rules do not–and realistically, cannot–consider fully the systemic responses to them?  Charging a price can make things worse if the price is wrong.  A financial Gosplan hardly inspires confidence, and methinks that’s exactly what Basel is.

As usual, Deus Ex Macchiato is worth reading:

One difficult criticism for those of us who believe that strong financial regulation is necessary – even if we don’t believe that the current structure is heading in the right direction – is that of rent seeking. The issue is that the stronger regulatory power is, the more it can be exploited. For me, the clearing provisions in Dodd Frank are a great example of this. The clearinghouses have been handed juicy profits by regulatory fiat.

Read the rest.  That’s an order.