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
EU published Directive 2021/338, which amends the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II and the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4 and 5) to facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
The Standing Committee of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) recommended that a systemic risk buffer level of 4.5% for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks to the stability of the financial system in Norway.
In a recent statement, PRA clarified its approach to the application of certain EU regulatory technical standards and EBA guidelines on standardized and internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk, following the end of the Brexit transition.
In a recently published letter addressed to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSB Chair Randal K. Quarles has set out the key FSB priorities for 2021.
EU published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, a corrigendum to the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR2 or Regulation 2019/876).
ESAs published a joint supervisory statement on the effective and consistent application and on national supervision of the regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR).
EC published a public consultation on the review of crisis management and deposit insurance frameworks in EU.
HKMA announced that enhancements will be made to the Special 100% Loan Guarantee of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme (SFGS) and the application period will be extended to December 31, 2021.
EBA launched consultations on the regulatory and implementing technical standards on cooperation and information exchange between competent authorities involved in prudential supervision of investment firms.
BoE issued a letter to the CEOs of eight major UK banks that are in scope of the first Resolvability Assessment Framework (RAF) reporting and disclosure cycle.