LCH shakes up compression vendor fee structure
Proposals follow criticism that current regime favours top provider TriOptima
LCH is set to offer refunds to smaller compression providers if they tear up 1 million trades in a given year, amid accusations from members that its current fee structure cossets TriOptima, the reigning provider.
Under the central counterparty’s previous fee regime, firms could become top-tier platinum providers – which could schedule unlimited runs, for free – if they generated £5 million ($6.3 million) a year in fee revenue for LCH. Now, firms will simply have to tear up 1 million trades in a year. Silver- and gold-tier firms will be refunded their vendor fee for the previous year if they hit this threshold. Otherwise, the current annual fees are £200,000 a year for silver and £480,000 for gold.
LCH’s two other approved compression service providers (ACSPs) – Quantile and Capitalab – do not hold platinum status.
The proposals – effective from January 1, 2019, and filed with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission on December 11, 2018 – follow criticisms from the CCP’s members, reported by Risk.net, that LCH’s fee structure for compression providers is overly complex, and does little to encourage competition among providers. In particular, several market participants complained the current setup encouraged TriOptima to schedule an excessive number of runs on favourable days, shutting out rivals and loading more work onto banks’ back offices.
Besides the rebates, LCH is also proposing that platinum-tier vendors – TriOptima is currently the only one – pay a top-up fee if a compression run does not meet a minimum efficiency standard: 15,000 tear-ups in one cycle. Not everyone is convinced the January 1 changes will remedy the situation, however.
“It’s good to see the rebate – that should help the smaller players,” says an XVA trader at one large bank. “But the bigger problem is there’s no disincentive for the bigger player to pile in and do more runs. They could have simply charged all providers equally, or just capped the overall number of runs. That would maximise the benefits of each.
“I would like to see them scrap all of these thresholds, and just have a target number of trades. It’s too complicated.”
LCH, TriOptima and Capitalab declined to comment. Quantile was not available for comment.
Under the new regime, gold- and silver-tier ACSPs will no longer have to pay a fee for performing additional runs outside their yearly allocations, provided those exceed a certain level. Euro and dollar cycles will be free of charge if the provider is able to compress 15,000 trades; runs in sterling must reach 8,000 to qualify.
Should additional runs fall short of those targets, the fees would remain at £22,500 a cycle for the silver tier and £18,000 for gold.
Conversely, platinum vendors will be charged an £18,000 penalty if one of their compression runs slips below 15,000 trades crushed in euro and dollar runs, or 8,000 in sterling.
This measure could mitigate complaints on the efficiency of compression cycles – the theory is if ACSPs risk a penalty for sparsely populated runs, they may elect to compress less frequently to ensure higher levels of participation.
Asked whether the moves are enough to encourage greater competition, the XVA trader says it is a start.
“I do find it slightly strange,” he says of the pricing structure. “It would have been nice if they’d gone a bit further, but it’s a step in the right direction.
“The platinum providers should be charged if they want to run as frequently as they do. At the moment, they don’t have to pay LCH for additional runs. That makes the number of cycles too many, and too frequent, which has led to a reduction in the effectiveness of compression, as dealers have to choose how many we can participate in. We have to limit the number of runs we do at the moment. We think there are too many. It would be better if everybody was in for big ones.”
Editing by Joan O’Neill
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
EU clearing houses pressured to diversify cloud vendors
CROs and regulators see tech concentration risk as a barrier to operational resilience
Why better climate data doesn’t always mean better decision-making
Risk Benchmarking research finds model and systems integration challenges almost as limiting to effective climate risk management
CanDeal looks to simplify third-party risk management
Six-bank vendor due diligence utility seeks international reach
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Italy’s spread problem is not (always) a credit story
Occasional doubts over Italy’s role in the monetary union adds political risk premium, argues economist
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
AI spend in US could be good for bonds in Europe – finance chiefs
Development of AI is capital-intensive, but adoption less so, which could favour EU
Climate risk managers’ top challenge: a dearth of data
Risk Benchmarking: Banks see client engagement and lender data pooling as solutions to climate blind spots – but few expect it to happen soon