![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
JP Morgan Chase plans US power trading foray
JP Morgan Chase is establishing a New York-based electricity trading desk, joining a growing number of banks that have entered the sector in the past year.
Ferc had previously set a 5% equity limit on the amount any banks active in the power trading markets could hold in any one utility. UBS and Bank of America (BoA) - banks with power trading operations - lobbied to alter the rule.
Ferc’s decision could lead to a flurry of banks entering the power trading area.
The majority of energy merchants left the power trading business due to a series of credit rating downgrades related to trading losses and market manipulation scandals. Although many analysts had expected banks to pick up where the merchants had left off, their ability to inject vigour into the power trading was, until now, stifled by Ferc’s utility stockholding limits.
In August, UBS and BoA submitted a joint request to the regulator seeking to change the rules that prohibit banks from holding a 5% stake in any electricity producing utility. Ferc had already raised the limit from 1% to 5% on June 5. The regulator imposed these limits as it feared banks could exert unfair control on utilities if they were allowed to trade electricity as well as owning sizeable parts of utilities.
But BoA and UBS argued onerous stockholding limits would prevent them owning or trading utility shares – a core part of their equity capital markets and asset management business lines.
Market sources told RiskNews' sister publication Energy Risk (formerly Energy & Power Risk Management ) that Ferc’s decision to alter its rules just two months after the rehearing request was surprising given the complexities involved. A source close to the situation had predicted that any rehearing process would drag on, since Ferc would have to delve into banking regulations – a largely unfamiliar territory for the regulator.
BoA and UBS had argued Ferc’s initial rules contained a misapprehension with respect to federal banking law concerning equity derivative holdings. Under Ferc’s June order, equity securities held as a hedge for the banks’ derivatives activities were not excluded from the 5% limitation.
UBS and BoA argued that hedging transactions are intended to reduce the risk to the bank of engaging in its permissible derivatives business. The application of the 5% limitation to the bank’s equity securities for hedging purposes would be inconsistent, and possibly at cross-purposes with bank regulatory regimes, the banks contended.
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU banks hedge net interest income to pass new IRRBB test
Would-be outliers look to cut sensitivity of cashflows to rate moves, but at what cost?
Banks cry foul over shock decision from Basel Committee
Asset and liability management professionals question severity of criteria in revised IRRBB tests
Fresh EU push for single securities supervisor to compete with US
But MEP expresses ‘concern’ EU nations will stall revival of capital markets union
Discord deepens over fund-linked trades in FRTB
More banks use punitive approach to capital treatment under new trading book regime, irking regulators
AI, quantum computing and tokenisation set to transform finance – Menon
But significant barriers remain preventing the technologies from unlocking their full potential
Could the SEC revive the private fund adviser rule?
Industry experts deem a second life for the reviled rule unlikely
Vendors lack silver bullet for FRTB’s fund-linked issue
EU and UK legislators tried to ease capital charge by leaning on vendors, but problems persist
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk