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

    FASB Proposes Improvements to Derivatives and Hedging Standard

    FASB proposed an Accounting Standards Update, on codification improvements to hedge accounting under Topic 815, to clarify certain sections of the 2017 hedge accounting standard (Update 2017-12).

    November 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FASB Approves Guidance to Assist in Transition to New Reference Rates

    FASB approved an Accounting Standards Update (Topic 848) to provide temporary, optional guidance to ease the potential burden in accounting for, or recognizing the effects of, the reference rate reform on financial reporting.

    November 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    BIS and MAS Launch Innovation Hub in Singapore

    BIS and MAS launched the BIS Innovation Hub Center in Singapore.

    November 13, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Collaborates on Research Platform to Support Fintech Investments

    MAS, Deloitte, and S&P Global Market Intelligence have collaborated to develop a prototype for an industry-wide Fintech Research Platform to help investors and financial institutions connect with fintech start-ups that they can partner with or invest in.

    November 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS and CSA Sign Agreement to Strengthen Collaboration in Fintech

    MAS and eight members of the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) signed a cooperation agreement to strengthen collaboration in fintech between Singapore and CSA’s member jurisdictions.

    November 12, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Consults to Standardize Submission Date for Quarterly Reporting

    APRA proposed to standardize quarterly reporting due dates for authorized deposit-taking institutions. The proposed standardized due date is 35 calendar days after the last day of the reference quarter, which will create a 14-calendar-day extension for credit unions and building societies.

    November 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Single Rulebook Q&A: First Update for November 2019

    EBA updated the Single Rulebook question and answer (Q&A) tool with answers to two questions. The answers provide clarifications on topics related to own funds and strong customer authentication under the revised Payment Services Directive or PSD2.

    November 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FED Proposes to Extend Initial Compliance Dates Under SCCL Rule

    FED published a proposal to extend, by 18 months, the initial compliance dates for foreign banks subject to the single-counterparty credit limit (SCCL) rule.

    November 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Publishes Technical Package on Reporting Framework 2.9.1

    EBA published a new release of the reporting framework 2.9.1. This release includes validation rules, Data Point Model (DPM) data dictionary, XBRL taxonomy, and other supporting documents. Additionally, the release fixes some modeling issues on COREP Liquidity and FINREP.

    November 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Report Examines Progress in Addressing Nonperforming Loans in EU

    EBA published a report that examines the progress toward addressing the nonperforming loan (NPL) issue in Europe.

    November 08, 2019 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 4131