ISDA published a guide to the cross-border application margin rules for non-cleared derivatives in US, EU, and Japan. The guide describes the cross-border and substituted compliance rules under different margin regimes and uses that framework to examine the applicable rules for US, EU, and Japan. The guide focuses on the position of an entity that is not a swap dealer but is either directly subject to margin rules or is obliged to comply with the margin requirements of its counterparties.
A large number of counterparties will come into the scope of initial margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives in 2020 and 2021. This has increased the focus on the applicability of the rules to cross-border trading relationships. However, practical challenges exist in analyzing multiple foreign rule sets and identifying situations in which different rules will apply as well as in understanding whether substituted compliance is available to reduce the compliance burden. Firms will need to understand the different aggregate average notional amount (AANA) calculations that are relevant to them, the initial margin thresholds that apply to their trading relationships, and the substantive requirements they will have to meet. This ISDA guide is intended to facilitate understanding of these rules. The guide looks strictly at the legal entity level to determine whether an institution is domestic or foreign. So, if a US group has a trading subsidiary that is established in France and registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer, then EU would be the domestic jurisdiction for that French legal entity and the US would be a foreign jurisdiction. Note that both regulated entities and covered counterparties under a jurisdiction’s margin rules may be domestic or foreign
The guide covers the three separate sets of margin rules from SEC, CFTC, and the prudential regulators (comprising Farm Credit Administration, FDIC, FED, FHFA, and OCC) in the United States. The US margin regimes define regulated entities by registration requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act for swap dealers, major swap participants, security based swap dealers, and major security based swap participants. The starting point for analyzing the cross-border application of the US rules is that they apply to domestic and foreign regulated entities when facing domestic or foreign covered counterparties, unless a cross-border exclusion applies or substituted compliance is available.
Additionally, the guide explains that margin regimes in EU and Japan are similar in that regulated entities are generally limited to entities organized or established in the jurisdiction, although with some exceptions. An alternative investment fund established outside EU and managed by an EU alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) that is authorized or registered in accordance with the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) is a regulated entity for EU rules. Similarly, a Japanese branch of a foreign country entity that is registered in Japan as a financial instruments business operator and a Japanese branch of a foreign bank or foreign insurance company that is registered in Japan as a registered financial institution) is a regulated entity for the Japan rules. The EU and Japan rules apply to domestic regulated entities (and to this limited scope of foreign regulated entities) when facing any covered counterparty, regardless of location.
Related Link: Guide (PDF)
Keywords: International, Europe, Asia Pacific, Americas, EU, Japan, US, Banking, Securities, Insurance, Swaps, OTC Derivatives, Margin Rules, AANA, ISDA
Previous ArticleBundesbank Updates Validation Rules Manual for AnaCredit Reporting
EIOPA submitted—to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and EC—its 2020, fifth, and last annual report on long-term guarantee measures and measures on equity risk.
The BIS Innovation Hub Swiss Centre, SNB, and the financial infrastructure operator SIX announced the successful completion of a joint proof-of-concept (PoC) experiment as part of the Project Helvetia.
EBA published the final draft regulatory technical standards for calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, under the standardized and internal model approaches of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) framework.
EIOPA published discussion paper on a methodology for the potential inclusion of climate change in the Solvency II (sometimes also written as SII) standard formula when calculating natural catastrophe underwriting risk.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, corrigenda to the Directive and the Regulation on the prudential requirements and supervision of investment firms.
MAS proposed amendments to certain regulations, notices, and guidelines arising from the Banking (Amendment) Act 2020.
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
RBNZ launched consultations on the scope of the Insurance Prudential Supervision Act (IPSA) 2010 and on the associated Insurance Solvency Standards.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.