JP Morgan exec challenges CCPs over skin in the game
"Why wouldn't you put up... all of your capital?" asks Olsen
Amid a growing clamour for clearing houses to stump up more loss-absorbing capital, the head of JP Morgan's clearing business has suggested central counterparties (CCPs) should allow all their capital to be wiped out before emergency measures impose losses on end-users.
"For all of our customers, we put all of our capital between a default and the clearing house – 100%. It doesn't stop there, though. We are also asked to contribute to the guarantee fund for risks we didn't introduce," said Dave Olsen, global head of clearing at JP Morgan, speaking on a panel on CCP recovery and resolution at a conference run today (September 17) by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in New York.
Turning to the CCPs on the panel, Olsen asked: "Why wouldn't you put up – at least at the end of the waterfall – all of your capital?"
Olsen's proposal would force CCPs to use all their operating capital before resorting to measures such as mandatory assessments on clearing members or haircutting the variation margin gains of end-users.
Kevin McLear, corporate risk officer for Ice, dismissed the idea. "As a regulated entity, we need to be concerned about our regulatory capital requirements for all of our clearing houses. We need to maintain a certain amount of operating capital to perform our current function," he said.
We are also asked to contribute to the guarantee fund for risks we didn't introduce
Olsen's comments are part of an increasingly fierce debate over the amount of capital – or 'skin in the game' – CCPs should put at risk. Banks are calling on clearing houses to contribute more capital to align their interests with members, while clearing houses claim their interests are already aligned.
In analysis published in Risk, Citi found the largest European and US clearing houses had a capital-to-default-fund ratio of only 2.6%. Citi argued a rates CCP should have a ratio of 8.1% based on expected shortfall calculations of the amount of tail risk these clearing houses face.
In a white paper published last year, JP Morgan called on CCPs to put up at least 10% of the capital in the default fund or an amount equivalent to the contribution of the single largest clearing member.
The US does not prescribe any standards on CCP skin in the game, so clearing houses can decide for themselves how much capital to put up.
Singapore, meanwhile, requires CCPs to contribute capital equal to 25% of their guarantee funds – a commitment that puts the swaps clearing house operated by the Singapore Exchange "ahead of the curve", according to a director of the exchange.
The European Market Infrastructure Regulation calls on CCPs to put 25% of their capital into the default waterfall – potentially a much smaller amount than in Singapore.
Commenting on the requirements in Europe, David Weisbrod, chief executive of LCH.Clearnet, said: "We think that's a very good approach. We adhere to that in the US voluntarily."
Sunil Cutinho, president of CME Clearing, said the calls for CCPs to stump up more capital ignores the risk-substitution effect of skin in the game.
"If a CCP's contribution into the waterfall were equal to the entity that had the largest constitution, then the very same entity can decrease its risk," Cutinho said. "So in what way is that skin in the game? That is exactly the opposite."
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
To liquidity and beyond: new funding strategies for UK pensions and insurance
Prompted by policy shifts and macro events, pension funds and insurance firms are seeking alternative solutions around funding and liquidity
More cleared repo sponsors join Eurex ahead of cross-margining
End of TLTROs for banks and pension fund search for liquidity management tools drives uptake
Reimagining model risk management: new tools and approaches for a new era
A collaborative report by Chartis and Evalueserve on how the use of automation can combat the growing complexity of managing model risk due to regulation and market volatility
What Goldman’s appeal victory means for Fed stress tests
Decision could embolden more banks to appeal, analysts say. But others believe result is one-off
Clearing members rattled as CME approved to launch its own FCM
National Futures Association registration sharpens concerns about conflict of interest with CCP
CME files application for US Treasury and repo clearing
New entrant believes direct user access model will avoid accounting problem that hampers rival FICC
UST repo clearing: considerations for ‘done-away’ implementation
Citi’s Mariam Rafi sets out the drivers for sponsored and agent clearing of Treasury repo and reverse repo
Gensler to stick to Treasury clearing timetable
SEC chief promises to keep up the pressure for done-away trades