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 ArticleEP Approves Appointments of Christine Lagarde and Yves Mersch
The Bank of England (BoE) published a consultation paper on approach to setting minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), an operational guide on executing bail-in, and a statement from the Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking preliminary input on standardization of the proportionality assessment methodology for credit institutions and investment firms.
Certain regulatory authorities in the US are extending period for completion of the review of certain residential mortgage provisions and for publication of notice disclosing the determination of this review until December 20, 2021.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the policy statement PS18/21, which introduces an amendment in the definition of "higher paid material risk taker" in the Remuneration Part of the PRA Rulebook.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its annual report on asset encumbrance in banking sector.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a methodological guide to mystery shopping.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a letter to authorized deposit-taking institutions to provide an update on key policy settings for the capital framework reforms, which will come into effect from January 01, 2023.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report that assesses the business continuity planning activities of financial market infrastructures or FMIs.
The Bank of England (BoE) published questions and answers (Q&A) on OSCA to BEEDS migration for statistical reporting as well a presentation from the project overview session held with statistical reporters.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is consulting on a technical amendment to the Basel Framework to reflect a new process reviewing the global systemically important bank (G-SIB) assessment methodology.