Featured Product

    BIS Paper Studies Incentives of For-Profit CCPs with Limited Liability

    February 11, 2019

    BIS published a working paper that studies the incentives of a for-profit central counterparties (CCP) with limited liability. A CCP faces a trade-off between fee income and counterparty credit risk. The paper investigates whether such CCP incentives undermine financial stability.

    Such for-profit CCPs choose how much capital to hold and set the collateral requirement for their clearing members, to maximize their own profits. They face a trade-off between fee income and counterparty credit risk. However, the limited liability of a CCP creates a misalignment between its choices and the socially optimal solution to this trade-off. In studying the factors that give rise to this misalignment, the paper derives the optimal capital regulations and examines the significant role of CCP ownership structures in safeguarding financial stability. This is the first paper that argues that a for-profit CCP would seek to hold less capital than is optimal from a social welfare perspective and, similarly, would require less collateral from its members than is optimal, thus undermining financial stability. From an empirical angle, this paper also provides the first evidence of a relationship between the capital held by CCPs and the collateral they require.

    The model developed in this paper implies that better-capitalized CCPs set higher collateral requirements. Empirical evidence suggests that a 1% increase in a for-profit CCP's capital is associated with a 0.6% increase in its members' collateral. Another implication, again deriving from its capitalization and collateral choices, is that a for-profit CCP is more likely to fail than is socially optimal. By contrast, a user-owned CCP chooses to hold more capital and is, therefore, less likely to fail. The data show that user-owned CCPs hold significantly more capital, on average, than for-profit CCPs do. Optimal capital requirements are derived for different levels of the clearing fees charged by for-profit CCPs. When this fee is low, the capital requirements incentivize CCPs to demand more collateral, thus bolstering financial stability. When fees are high, capital requirements do not change a CCP's incentives but serve to boost its loss-absorbing capacity.

     

    Related Links

    Keywords: International, PMI, Banking, Securities, CCPs, Financial Stability, Capital Requirements, BIS

    Related Articles
    News

    EBA Report on MREL Shows Progress in Resolution Planning

    EBA published the first quantitative report taking stock of the increased capacity of minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) in EU.

    February 17, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESMA Updates Q&A on Credit Rating Agencies Regulation

    ESMA updated questions and answers (Q&A) document on the Credit Rating Agencies (CRA) Regulation.

    February 17, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EC Announces Funding for Sustainable Finance Project in France

    EC announced an investment for the latest projects, including a project on sustainable finance, under the LIFE program for the environment and climate action.

    February 17, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FDIC Releases Economic Scenarios for Stress Testing in 2020

    FDIC released the hypothetical economic scenarios for use in the upcoming stress tests for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of more than USD 250 billion.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Acknowledges EC Adoption of Amended Supervisory Reporting Standard

    EBA acknowledged the adoption, by EC, of an Implementing Act with regard to the common reporting (COREP) and financial reporting (FINREP) changes, in accordance with the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA and ASIC Welcome Proposed Reforms for Superannuation Sector

    APRA and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have jointly welcomed the proposed legislative reforms increasing the role of ASIC in the superannuation sector.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ESMA Responds to EC Consultation on Review of Benchmarks Regulation

    ESMA published its response to EC consultation on review of the Benchmarks Regulation in EU.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    OSFI on Guide and Form for Replicating Portfolio Information Summary

    OSFI revised the instruction guide and form related to filing the Replicating Portfolio Information Summary.

    February 14, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FFIEC Publishes Guide to HMDA Reporting for Data Collected in 2020

    FFIEC issued the 2020 edition of guide to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting for the data collected in 2020 and reported in 2021.

    February 13, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    ISDA Guide on Smart Contracts for Equity and Interest Rate Derivatives

    ISDA has published the fourth and fifth installments in a series of legal guidelines for smart derivatives contracts.

    February 13, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4687