ISDA published a paper that highlights the main areas of difference in the implementation of margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives across jurisdictions and makes recommendations on how to resolve these variations. The paper discusses differences in implementation in key areas such as eligible collateral requirements, initial margin model governance obligations, misalignments in initial margin product scope, settlement time frames, and treatment of inter-affiliate transactions.
Jurisdictions across the globe have implemented margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives, largely in line with the standards agreed by BCBS and IOSCO. Since implementation of the first phase of the requirements in 2016, the U.S., EU, Japan, and others have extended the requirements in line with the phase-in schedule agreed by BCBS and IOSCO. The consistency in requirements has enabled ISDA to develop and implement industry solutions to aid compliance, including standard initial margin and variation margin documentation, the ISDA Standard Initial Margin Model (ISDA SIMMTM), and ISDA Create—Initial Margin, an online tool for negotiating and executing initial margin documents. Nonetheless, differences in the implementation across jurisdictions still exist in certain key areas such as eligible collateral, settlement time frames, and treatment of inter-affiliate transactions. These inconsistencies create unnecessary complexity and costs for derivatives users and contribute to market fragmentation.
While initial margin and variation margin reduce counterparty credit risk and have the potential to mitigate systemic risk, divergence in the implementation of margin requirements across jurisdictions contributes to market fragmentation, increases the cost and complexity of cross-border trading, and decreases access to global liquidity pools. Aligning margin requirements in the mentioned key areas would significantly reduce these negative market effects without compromising overall policy objectives. By means of illustration, the paper outlines the requirements of the U.S., EU, UK, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Margin Requirements, Counterparty Credit Risk, OTC Derivatives, ISDA
Previous ArticleIMF Publishes Reports on 2019 Article IV Consultation with Ireland
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).