ISDA and certain industry associations have recommended reforms to the Benchmarks Regulation in EU. These industry associations are the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (ASIFMA), the Futures Industry Association (FIA), and the Global Foreign Exchange Division of the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA). The proposed recommendations would ensure the highest standards of governance and transparency apply to benchmarks that pose systemic risk, while enabling EU firms to continue accessing the non-systemic benchmarks they rely on to manage their day-to-day exposures. A key component of the recommendations is to narrow the scope of the Benchmarks regulation.
An estimated 2.96 million benchmarks are in use globally, the majority of which pose no systemic risk. However, a general prohibition on use within the Benchmarks Regulation means none of these benchmarks can be used by EU investors, unless they comply with the regulation. While many EU critical benchmarks have now complied with the Benchmarks Regulation, a complex, costly, and burdensome third-country benchmark regime means there are concerns that many overseas benchmarks are unlikely to qualify, barring them from use in EU after the end of the transition period on December 31, 2021. The prohibition of potentially large numbers of benchmarks would result in EU investors being unable to manage risks that arise as a result of their business activities and could even pose a threat to financial stability, the associations say. The recommendations include the following:
- Allow benchmarks to be used in EU unless specifically prohibited (that is, a reversal of the current general prohibition of benchmarks unless specifically authorized)
- Provide designatory powers to an appropriate central authority (such as EC or ESMA) to mandate compliance for the EU and third-country benchmarks that are most systemically important to investors in EU
- Allow third-country administrators to obtain authorization from an appropriate central authority (such as EC or ESMA), or to qualify via equivalence, or via reformed endorsement or recognition processes, each within a fixed period of time
- Exempt EU non-significant benchmarks and their equivalent third-country benchmarks from mandatory designation
- Consider exempting EU significant benchmarks and their equivalent third-country benchmarks from mandatory designation, to better align the Benchmarks Regulation with the scope of benchmark regulations globally
- Exempt public policy benchmarks (for example, foreign-exchange rates used in non-deliverable forwards and certain interest rate swaps) and regulated data benchmarks
- Provide a voluntary labeling regime to allow administrators to comply with the Benchmarks Regulation and market their benchmarks as Benchmarks Regulation-compliant
- Provide regulators with the power to prohibit the acquisition of new exposure to benchmarks that fail to comply with the Benchmarks Regulation, but permit the use of such benchmarks for managing or reducing legacy positions
- Provide end-users with enhanced visibility on whether third-country benchmarks have qualified (or been disqualified) for use under the regime via a more usable ESMA register
According to a statement by the ISDA Chief Executive Officer Scott O'Malia, the Benchmarks Regulation was established to meet an important objective—to avoid disruption and to protect EU investors from badly run or failing benchmarks. The recommended changes will help achieve that objective and the end result will be a proportionate regime that provides a robust safeguard against the failure of systemically important benchmarks, while creating a level playing field for EU investors.
Keywords: International, Europe, EU, Banking, Securities, Benchmarks Regulation, Governance, Systemic Risk, ASIFMA, FIA, GFMA, Third Country Benchmarks, EC, ESMA, ISDA
Previous ArticleBCBS Amends Guidelines on Sound Management of AML/CFT Risks
PRA published the policy statement PS8/21, which contains the final supervisory statement SS3/21 on the PRA approach to supervision of the new and growing non-systemic banks in UK.
EBA published a report that sets out the final draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions according to which consolidation shall be carried out in line with Article 18 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
EBA updated the list of other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) in EU.
BCBS published two reports that discuss transmission channels of climate-related risks to the banking system and the measurement methodologies of climate-related financial risks.
UK Authorities (FCA and PRA) welcomed the findings of FSB peer review on the implementation of financial sector remuneration reforms in the UK.
PRA and FCA jointly issued a letter that highlights risks associated with the increasing volumes of deposits that are placed with banks and building societies via deposit aggregators and how to mitigate these risks.
MFSA announced that amendments to the Banking Act, Subsidiary Legislation, and Banking Rules will be issued in the coming months, to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5) into the national regulatory framework.
EC finalized the Delegated Regulation 2021/598 that supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or 575/2013) and lays out the regulatory technical standards for assigning risk-weights to specialized lending exposures.
OSFI launched a consultation to explore ways to enhance the OSFI assurance over capital, leverage, and liquidity returns for banks and insurers, given the increasing complexity arising from the evolving regulatory reporting framework due to IFRS 17 (Insurance Contracts) standard and Basel III reforms.
ECB published results of the benchmarking analysis of the recovery plan cycle for 2019.