The FSB Secretary General Dietrich Domanski spoke, at a conference, about the management of central counterparty (CCP) risk. With respect to the CCP reforms, he discussed the work done so far and the work that remains to be done from the perspective of FSB. In terms of the remaining work, he covered areas of policy development as well as the implementation and evaluation of the existing standards. According to him, more work is needed to ensure adequacy of financial resources and treatment of CCP equity in resolution, to complete the adoption of central clearing frameworks, and to understand the effects of reforms on central clearing.
Mr. Domanski highlighted that CCP resolution continues to be a challenging topic, with complex debates around issues such as the use of variation margin gains haircutting, resources and responsibility for non-default losses, and the boundary between recovery and resolution. In November 2018, FSB had published a discussion paper, jointly with CPMI and IOSCO, on financial resources to support CCP resolution and the treatment of equity in CCP resolution. Responses to the public consultation, along with the experience of authorities in evaluating financial resources for resolution, will help inform the development of guidance by the end of 2020. He mentioned that next steps need to be based on the responses received. Mr. Domanski also noted the continued progress toward enhancing the regulatory frameworks for CCPs, including in cross-border aspects such as deference decisions in relation to CCPs, and in setting expectations for their sound design and operations (consistent with PFMI by CPMI and IOSCO). He also emphasized that more work is needed across the FSB membership to implement requirements on recovery and resolution. In Europe, EC, as a member of FSB, and the European Parliamentarians have shown a clear desire to implement the international standards while some other jurisdictions do not yet have in place a comprehensive resolution regime for CCPs.
He added that the Crisis Management Groups (CMGs) are a key component in ensuring that appropriate resolution arrangements are in place, given the cross-border activities of many CCPs. Authorities have begun to establish CMGs for CCPs that have been identified as systemically important in more than one jurisdiction. CMGs and institution-specific cooperation agreements that underpin their operation are not yet in place for all such CCPs and resolution planning for CCPs is still at an early stage. For CCPs that are systemically important in more than one jurisdiction, resolution plans should be developed by the home resolution authority and coordinated within CMG or equivalent arrangements. Rapid progress in implementation is important. A lack of effective and timely implementation of the guidance on CCP resilience, recovery, and resolution would considerably limit the toolkit that supervisors have to address CCP risks.
The evaluation of the effects of reforms is a new, key area of FSB work. One of the first two evaluations under FSB framework was on the incentives to centrally clear derivatives. The evaluation found that including client margins in the leverage ratio creates a disincentive for central clearing. BCBS has been consulting on the question of whether, and how, there is a case for changing the treatment of client margins in the leverage ratio in light of this finding. Furthermore, CCPs will play a role in another evaluation by FSB. This evaluation will examine the effects of too-big-to-fail reforms for banks. Notwithstanding the focus on banks, the evaluation will consider implications for CCPs, keeping in mind that global systemically important banks are the largest clearing members and key nodes in an interconnected financial system. This evaluation should be completed by late 2020. Finally, he discussed the initiative (a priority under Japan’s G20 Presidency in 2019) on exploring the causes and financial stability implications of market fragmentation, along with the possible policy approaches to address possible unintended effects.
Related Link: Speech (PDF)
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, CCP, Resolution Planning, Recovery and Resolution, Post Crisis Reforms, CCP Resolution, Too Big to Fail, FSB
Previous ArticleFCA Responds to Comments on Its Call for Input on PRIIPs Regulation
PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).
EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.
PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.
APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.
EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.