CPMI and IOSCO published, for public comment, a discussion paper on central counterparty (CCP) default management auctions. The discussion in this paper reflects the current practices at one or more CCPs and identifies the types of factors that one or more CCPs take into account when planning and conducting default management auctions. Additionally, the discussion paper identifies certain considerations that may be useful for CCPs to take into account when planning for auctions. CPMI and IOSCO also published a cover note listing the issues on which inputs are being solicited. The comment period on this discussion paper ends on August 09, 2019.
This discussion paper is intended to facilitate the sharing of existing practices and views on default management auctions and to advance industry efforts and foster dialog on the key concepts, processes, and operational aspects used by CCPs in planning and executing effective default management auctions. The effective and smooth management of a participant default is essential to the resilience of a CCP and can help reduce systemic risk. A default management auction is one of the tools that a CCP may use to transfer a defaulting participant’s positions, or subset thereof, to a non-defaulting participant, thus restoring the CCP to a matched book. The paper presents a number of questions and invites comments on the benefits and challenges of various approaches as well as on the potential ways to overcome challenges inherent in default management auctions.
The paper focuses on the following five key aspects of the default management auctions of a CCP:
- Governance—The paper discusses the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in a CCP’s default management auction. The paper specifies that an effective auction process includes specifying the roles and responsibilities of the auction participants and a CCP’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, who may be involved in the auction process.
- Considerations for a successful default management auction—The paper outlines considerations of a successful default management auction and, by contrast, identifies scenarios in which a CCP may determine an auction to be unsuccessful. It also discusses activities that take place before the auction and the potential options available to a CCP in the event of an unsuccessful auction.
- Operational considerations—The paper describes the operational issues a CCP considers when planning and executing a default management auction.
- Client participation—The paper highlights that a CCP and its clearing members may take into account several considerations when deciding whether to permit or facilitate client participation, including liability of the clearing member, incentives of clients to bid competitively, the level of legal and operational readiness at the client, and the risk of information leakage.
- Default of a common participant across multiple CCPs—The paper identifies potential issues inherent when two or more CCPs conduct auctions concurrently, thus creating further operational and/or financial strains on auction participants.
Comment Due Date: August 09, 2019
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, CCP, Systemic Risk, Default Management Auction, Governance, CPMI, IOSCO
Previous ArticleMAS Consults on Scope of Application of IAC Guidelines
Next ArticleDave Ramsden of BoE Speaks on Transition from LIBOR
HKMA announced the publication of a report on fintech adoption and innovation in the banking industry in Hong Kong.
BIS published a working paper that examines the drivers of cyber risk, especially in context of the cloud services.
ECB launched consultation on a guide specifying how the Banking Supervision expects banks to consider climate-related and environmental risks in their governance and risk management frameworks and when formulating and implementing their business strategy.
ECB published an opinion (CON/2020/16) on amendments to the prudential framework in EU in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA published a report that examines the interlinkages between recovery and resolution planning under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).
SRB published the final Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) policy under the Banking Package.
EIOPA published its risk dashboard based on Solvency II data from the fourth quarter of 2019.
MNB published a statement on loan payments post the announced moratorium, in addition to a set of new questions and answers (Q&A) on supervisory measures and requirements announced amid COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA updated the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool for banks.
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) published an interim final rule that temporarily revises the supplementary leverage ratio calculation for depository institutions.