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
FCA is consulting on its approach to the authorization and supervision of international firms operating in UK.
MAS published amendments to Notice 637 on the risk-based capital adequacy requirements for reporting banks incorporated in Singapore.
FCA announced that it will move firms to RegData from Gabriel in the coming months in stages, based on the reporting requirements of firms.
APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.
ESAs (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) published the first joint report that assesses risks in the financial sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
BoE and HM Treasury confirmed that the COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) will close for new purchases of commercial paper, with effect from March 23, 2021.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
EBA has decided to phase out the guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria of loan repayments, in accordance with the earlier specified end of September deadline.