Banks fear fracturing of Asian trading desks by FRTB
Rules could produce “lots of little country desks”, warns StanChart market risk head
Global banks fear they will be forced to break up their emerging market trading desks to comply with new market risk capital rules, according to conference speakers.
Current structures – in which staff dotted across several offices may report in to a single line manager – may have to be replaced by small, country-specific desks, if each national regulator reacts to the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) by wanting to ring-fence trading operations in their jurisdiction.
“For any bank that has a lot of different locations and particularly a lot of subsidiaries, that is a big problem. Anything we can do to work with our regulators to avoid a complete fragmentation, creating lots of little country desks all over the place, would be fantastic,” Philippe Lintern, global head of market risk at Standard Chartered, told the FRTB Implementation Summit on May 23. “There is a balkanisation nightmare scenario.”
Finalised in January 2016, the FRTB requires banks to divide all their market risk operations into individual trading desks. Each desk must have a designated head, and each trader must belong only to one desk.
Other speakers said banks have a wide range of priorities when deciding their desk structure, including which products they see offering the best business opportunities, which risks need closest monitoring, as well as data availability, implementation cost and capital management requirements. The FRTB could trample on these priorities, banks fear, if different national regulators insist each desk has a local head.
“We are lead-regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority [PRA] in the UK, so from a PRA and group capital perspective, we can take a cross-business and cross-country view quite easily. But we have large subsidiaries in Hong Kong, Korea and China, and I can imagine all of them are going to want their local versions of FRTB with local versions of the desk,” said Lintern.
Etienne Varloot, global head of market risk at French bank Natixis, told the conference the bank is already able to calculate a discrete risk number for expected shortfall under the current Basel 2.5 framework for all activities in a specific office such as Hong Kong, if requested to do so by the local regulator. This would not require creating a separate trading desk. “But it is to be expected that they will ask for an independent desk,” he warned.
We have large subsidiaries in Hong Kong, Korea and China, and I can imagine all of them are going to want their local versions of FRTB with local versions of the desk
Philippe Lintern, Standard Chartered
This could generate a number of difficulties, Varloot said. At the moment, Hong Kong is the head office for the Asia region and therefore currently aggregates risk for smaller offices such as Beijing, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Varloot said he feared having to set up many very small FRTB desks to provide separate expected shortfall computations to each local supervisor.
Another problem is that the FRTB sets out a much brighter line dividing activities between trading and banking books. Where global banks run small Asian trading operations, teams of just a few staff normally work on both client and internal treasury trades – this might be prohibited by the requirement that any trader should only serve on a single desk.
“Can a trader doing FX trading in Singapore at the same time work for the treasury desk on the banking book? It isn’t clear; you can read the text in two different ways. For the time being, we are going for [the answer] ‘yes they can’, because if not, we are going to have to double the human resources in most of our local branches, which would be crazy – hiring people to do sometimes a couple of trades a month. I don’t think the regulator wants us to go out of business in Moscow or Dubai or wherever,” said Varloot.
The European Commission unveiled its proposal to implement FRTB in November 2016, while the US legislation is still pending.
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 Regulation
EU officials tamp down hopes for bank capital relief
Capital cuts are not a done deal in EC’s review of competitiveness, despite US deregulation
EU regulators clash over ceding supervision to Esma
Belgian and Spanish regulators differ on drive for centralised oversight of cross-border firms
Why Trump’s latest Truth should make TradFi twitchy
Wall Street is becoming the villain in US president’s crypto movie
EBA guidance prompts banks to rethink CSRBB perimeters
Banks will likely have to expand their credit spread risk coverage following recommendations
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
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision