Featured Product

    BIS Paper Studies Incentives of For-Profit CCPs with Limited Liability

    February 11, 2019

    BIS published a working paper that studies the incentives of a for-profit central counterparties (CCP) with limited liability. A CCP faces a trade-off between fee income and counterparty credit risk. The paper investigates whether such CCP incentives undermine financial stability.

    Such for-profit CCPs choose how much capital to hold and set the collateral requirement for their clearing members, to maximize their own profits. They face a trade-off between fee income and counterparty credit risk. However, the limited liability of a CCP creates a misalignment between its choices and the socially optimal solution to this trade-off. In studying the factors that give rise to this misalignment, the paper derives the optimal capital regulations and examines the significant role of CCP ownership structures in safeguarding financial stability. This is the first paper that argues that a for-profit CCP would seek to hold less capital than is optimal from a social welfare perspective and, similarly, would require less collateral from its members than is optimal, thus undermining financial stability. From an empirical angle, this paper also provides the first evidence of a relationship between the capital held by CCPs and the collateral they require.

    The model developed in this paper implies that better-capitalized CCPs set higher collateral requirements. Empirical evidence suggests that a 1% increase in a for-profit CCP's capital is associated with a 0.6% increase in its members' collateral. Another implication, again deriving from its capitalization and collateral choices, is that a for-profit CCP is more likely to fail than is socially optimal. By contrast, a user-owned CCP chooses to hold more capital and is, therefore, less likely to fail. The data show that user-owned CCPs hold significantly more capital, on average, than for-profit CCPs do. Optimal capital requirements are derived for different levels of the clearing fees charged by for-profit CCPs. When this fee is low, the capital requirements incentivize CCPs to demand more collateral, thus bolstering financial stability. When fees are high, capital requirements do not change a CCP's incentives but serve to boost its loss-absorbing capacity.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, PMI, Banking, Securities, CCPs, Financial Stability, Capital Requirements, BIS

    Related Articles
    News

    FSB Examines Financial Stability Aspects of Bigtech and Cloud Services

    FSB published two reports that consider the financial stability implications from the offering of financial services by bigtech firms and the adoption of cloud computing and data services across a range of functions at financial institutions.

    December 09, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Specifies Capital Treatment of Equity Investments in ABGF

    APRA published a letter to the authorized deposit-taking institutions outlining the regulatory capital treatment of their equity investments in the Australian Business Growth Fund (ABGF).

    December 09, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Publishes Action Plan on Sustainable Finance

    EBA published the Action Plan on sustainable finance for banks.

    December 06, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: Second Update for December 2019

    EBA updated the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool with answers to three questions under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the second Payment Services Directive (PSD 2).

    December 06, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Publishes Proposal to Increase Transparency of Banking Data

    APRA proposed to substantially increase the volume and breadth of data it makes publicly available on authorized deposit-taking institutions, including banks, credit unions, and building societies.

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESMA Consults on Guide to Internal Controls for Credit Rating Agencies

    ESMA launched a consultation on the guidelines on internal controls for credit rating agencies (CRAs).

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EU Finalizes Directive and Prudential Rules for Investment Firms

    EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Directive (2019/2034) and Regulation (2019/2033) on the prudential requirements and supervision of investment firms.

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI Revises Guideline on Principles for Management of Liquidity Risk

    OSFI finalized Guideline B-6 on the principles for the management of liquidity risk.

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESAs Publish Draft Amendments to Bilateral Margin Requirements

    ESAs published joint draft regulatory technical standards to amend the Delegated Regulation on the risk mitigation techniques for non-cleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives as well as a joint statement on the introduction of fallbacks in OTC derivative contracts and the requirement to exchange collateral.

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    RBNZ Releases Final Decisions Related to Capital Review for Banks

    RBNZ released a paper that sets out its final decisions following the comprehensive review of its capital framework for banks, known as the Capital Review.

    December 05, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4279