ISDA published a report that summarizes responses to the consultation on pre-cessation issues for London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and certain other interbank offered rates (IBORs). The consultation sought comments on how derivatives contracts should address a regulatory announcement that LIBOR or certain other IBORs categorized as critical benchmarks under the EU Benchmarks Regulation are no longer representative of an underlying market. The responses to the consultation indicate that a majority of market participants would not be content to continue referencing a covered IBOR in either existing or future derivative contracts, post a public statement from the supervisor of that covered IBOR that it was no longer representative.
The consultation responses suggested that market participants have serious reservations about the continued use of IBORs that are are no longer representative of an underlying market. Respondents to the consultation broadly desired a uniform transition to fallback rates across products and currencies. However, the respondents expressed a wide variety of views on whether and how to implement a pre-cessation trigger for covered IBORs, related to non-representativeness for derivatives. In general, the respondents fell into four general categories with respect to how to implement a pre-cessation trigger, without a clear majority in any one category:
- Those who supported adding a pre-cessation trigger to the permanent cessation triggers in the hard wired amendment to the 2006 ISDA Definitions but did not specifically address a preference regarding optionality or flexibility (14.6% of respondents)
- Those who supported adding a pre-cessation trigger to the permanent cessation triggers in the hard wired amendment to the 2006 ISDA Definitions and opposed the publication of a protocol with optionality or flexibility (26.97% of respondents)
- Those who supported the use of a pre-cessation trigger and supported implementation with optionality and flexibility (22.5% of respondents)
- Those who opposed the use of a pre-cessation trigger (28.1% of respondents)
Overall, the consultation did not yield a consensus among market participants regarding how to address pre-cessation issues related to representativeness. Although a majority of respondents (64.0%) supported the inclusion of a pre-cessation trigger in the amended 2006 ISDA Definitions, the responses revealed significant disagreement about how to implement such a trigger.
The consultation took place between May and July. ISDA received 89 responses to the consultation from entities in sixteen countries across the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Africa. Respondents included asset managers, banks, pension funds, insurance companies, government entities, financial services firms, exchanges and clearinghouses, and industry and trade associations. The consultation followed a request by the FSB Official Sector Steering Group; the request was for ISDA to obtain market feedback on the events that should trigger a move to a spread-adjusted fallback rate for LIBOR.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Pensions, LIBOR, IBOR, Fallback Provisions, Derivative Contracts, Pre-Cessation Triggers, Benchmarks Regulation, ISDA
Previous ArticleEC Consults on Alternative Standardized Approach for Market Risk
BCBS Finalizes Revisions to Credit Valuation Adjustment Risk Framework
PRA published a statement to insurers that clarifies the approach to application of the matching adjustment during COVID-19 crisis.
EBA published a report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies within the prudential framework for banking sector.
EC launched a consultation to revise the network and information systems (NIS) Directive (2016/1148), which was adopted in July 2016 and is the first horizontal internal market instrument aimed at improving the resilience of the EU against cybersecurity risks.
PRA published a statement that outlines its view on the implications of LIBOR transition for contracts in scope of the “Contractual Recognition of Bail-In” and “Stay in Resolution” parts of the PRA Rulebook.
PRA published the policy statement PS15/20 to reflect additional resilience associated with higher macro-prudential buffers in a standard risk environment with a reduction in Pillar 2A capital requirements.
BCBS published the eighteenth progress report on implementation of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
FCA announced proposals that would provide continued support for certain consumer credit products to users, who are facing a financial impact because of the exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR published a draft version of taxonomy RAN 1.4.0_PWD1, along with the related documentation, for Solvency II reporting.
BCBS amended the guidelines on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT).