
Monitoring failure: limited progress for commodities firms
Majority of market participants unprepared for position limits regime
Two recent announcements should ease market worries about the absolute level of European position limits. What firms will now fret about is having the right systems and procedures to monitor their positions so they can fit them under the thresholds, whenever they are eventually set.
The picture is not encouraging. Nearly three-quarters of the roughly 150 commodity market participants polled during a September 26 Energy Risk webinar said their systems aren’t fully ready for the January 3 start date. The level of unpreparedness is even higher if you account for the fact that 15.4% did not believe the caps apply to them.
The spotlight shifted firmly onto monitoring capabilities after the European Securities and Markets Authority announced on September 28 it will not approve nationally set limits on positions in commodity derivatives until after the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive goes live. In the meantime, the unapproved limits will apply.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority – responsible for setting the vast majority of limits – might have known this is where Esma was heading, or could have guessed as much, because an earlier speech by the FCA’s director of enforcement and market oversight put less emphasis on immediate compliance with the caps. “We have no intention of taking enforcement action against firms for not meeting all requirements straight away where there is evidence they have taken sufficient steps to meet the new obligations by the start date,” Mark Steward said on September 20.
Those “sufficient steps”, rather than knowledge of the caps themselves, are now therefore paramount. Consider what firms will have to do day-to-day: some will have to monitor limits across jurisdictions; some will have to aggregate at group level – and report them to regulators at the end of each trading day; and added to this, the limits will be applied continuously, meaning firms must monitor their positions throughout the day, so a system of alerts and operational prompts to reduce positions when they draw closer to a limit must be put in place.
A plethora of off-the-shelf tools have already been built specially for position monitoring. But these systems don’t just slide easily into a company’s back office. “Be careful with any type of ‘out-of-the-box’ trading system,” said Marc Merrill, director of international law and global trading at Uniper, during the Energy Risk webinar. “There’s always going to be a requirement to tie them together with your own systems.”
An IT expert at a large financial institution advises that the implementation process required by the position limit regime should include at least two months of testing. And if system failures are extensive during the testing period, another two months of testing would be needed.
Much of the market needs to get to work.
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 Our take
Getting a handle on model parameters
Mean reversion in rate parameters opens the door to dimensionality reduction
The case for believing in a Bessent put
Money market funds could prove critical in efforts to control 10-year yields
FRTB may bite harder for Europe’s CVA modellers
Farther reach of advanced approach and lighter load on total requirements mean limited takeaways from Canada and Japan’s implementation
Japan, Basel III and the pitfalls of being on time
Capital floor phase-in delay may be least-worst option for JFSA as US and Europe waver
FX traders revel in March Madness
Chaotic Trump policies finally bring diversity to flows – to the delight of market-makers
Market knee-jerks keep VAR models on their toes
With a return to volatility, increased backtesting exceptions show banks’ algos are stretched
A market-making model for an options portfolio
Vladimir Lucic and Alex Tse fill a glaring gap in European-style derivatives modelling
How AI agents could become investing’s crash test dummies
Firms mull the use of chatbot simulations to test organisational set-ups