IMF published a working paper that proposes alternative policy suggestions for central counterparty (CCP) resolution. The paper analyzes current resolution tools in the context of policy, which is to restore the critical functions of a failed CCP, and concludes that the toolkit is insufficient to avoid the costs of resolution being borne by taxpayers.
This paper begins by outlining the role, structure, and economics of CCPs. It then describes the function of CCPs and reviews the need for, and content of, recovery and resolution regimes for CCPs. It also assesses the toolkit for resolution of CCPs—that is, the options available when own recovery efforts of a CCP have not succeeded. The paper shows that the classic approach to resolving a bank has little chance of success with a CCP and that the other tools, which are ostensibly for resolution, are effectively forms of recovery. Next, the paper examines the policy thinking behind current proposals and specific resolution tools. It draws conclusions about what would be left in the toolkit, if various efforts at recovery (regardless of how they are categorized in the confused taxonomy applicable to troubled CCPs) fail. Finally, the paper proposes new tools to address this issue and these tools entail:
- Relaxing the clearing obligation
- Widening sources of capital and building reserves
- Scrutinizing failed CCPs to benefit from lessons learned
The paper concludes that many of the tools proposed for resolving CCPs might prove to be unusable in a crisis or even worsen the crisis. Additional tools are needed; some of those would demand that regulators accept that the existing policy belief—in particular, that mandatory clearing must carry on under all circumstances—may not hold valid in a crisis. The draft EU Regulation on this is a valiant legislative attempt to lay more detail around FSB’s outline paper on CCP resolution. The CPMI-IOSCO and FSB should modify their recommendations to dispel the assumption by lawmakers that a resolution model that works for banks will be suitable for CCPs. It is not too late for action to improve policy on failing CCPs.
Related Link: Working Paper (PDF)
Previous ArticleIAIS Issues Global Insurance Market Report for 2017
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules with respect to the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
EBA published its response to the call for advice of EC on ways to strengthen the EU legal framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies.
MAS published the guidelines on individual accountability and conduct at financial institutions.
APRA published final versions of the prudential standard APS 220 on credit quality and the reporting standard ARS 923.2 on repayment deferrals.
SRB published two articles, with one article discussing the framework in place to safeguard financial stability amid crisis and the other article outlining the path to a harmonized and predictable liquidation regime.
FSB hosted a virtual workshop as part of the consultation process for its evaluation of the too-big-to-fail reforms.
ECB updated the list of supervised entities in EU, with the number of significant supervised entities being 115.
OSFI published the key findings of a study on third-party risk management.
FSB is extending the implementation timeline, by one year, for the minimum haircut standards for non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions or SFTs.