ISDA and certain industry associations have recommended reforms to the Benchmarks Regulation in EU. These industry associations are the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (ASIFMA), the Futures Industry Association (FIA), and the Global Foreign Exchange Division of the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA). The proposed recommendations would ensure the highest standards of governance and transparency apply to benchmarks that pose systemic risk, while enabling EU firms to continue accessing the non-systemic benchmarks they rely on to manage their day-to-day exposures. A key component of the recommendations is to narrow the scope of the Benchmarks regulation.
An estimated 2.96 million benchmarks are in use globally, the majority of which pose no systemic risk. However, a general prohibition on use within the Benchmarks Regulation means none of these benchmarks can be used by EU investors, unless they comply with the regulation. While many EU critical benchmarks have now complied with the Benchmarks Regulation, a complex, costly, and burdensome third-country benchmark regime means there are concerns that many overseas benchmarks are unlikely to qualify, barring them from use in EU after the end of the transition period on December 31, 2021. The prohibition of potentially large numbers of benchmarks would result in EU investors being unable to manage risks that arise as a result of their business activities and could even pose a threat to financial stability, the associations say. The recommendations include the following:
- Allow benchmarks to be used in EU unless specifically prohibited (that is, a reversal of the current general prohibition of benchmarks unless specifically authorized)
- Provide designatory powers to an appropriate central authority (such as EC or ESMA) to mandate compliance for the EU and third-country benchmarks that are most systemically important to investors in EU
- Allow third-country administrators to obtain authorization from an appropriate central authority (such as EC or ESMA), or to qualify via equivalence, or via reformed endorsement or recognition processes, each within a fixed period of time
- Exempt EU non-significant benchmarks and their equivalent third-country benchmarks from mandatory designation
- Consider exempting EU significant benchmarks and their equivalent third-country benchmarks from mandatory designation, to better align the Benchmarks Regulation with the scope of benchmark regulations globally
- Exempt public policy benchmarks (for example, foreign-exchange rates used in non-deliverable forwards and certain interest rate swaps) and regulated data benchmarks
- Provide a voluntary labeling regime to allow administrators to comply with the Benchmarks Regulation and market their benchmarks as Benchmarks Regulation-compliant
- Provide regulators with the power to prohibit the acquisition of new exposure to benchmarks that fail to comply with the Benchmarks Regulation, but permit the use of such benchmarks for managing or reducing legacy positions
- Provide end-users with enhanced visibility on whether third-country benchmarks have qualified (or been disqualified) for use under the regime via a more usable ESMA register
According to a statement by the ISDA Chief Executive Officer Scott O'Malia, the Benchmarks Regulation was established to meet an important objective—to avoid disruption and to protect EU investors from badly run or failing benchmarks. The recommended changes will help achieve that objective and the end result will be a proportionate regime that provides a robust safeguard against the failure of systemically important benchmarks, while creating a level playing field for EU investors.
Keywords: International, Europe, EU, Banking, Securities, Benchmarks Regulation, Governance, Systemic Risk, ASIFMA, FIA, GFMA, Third Country Benchmarks, EC, ESMA, ISDA
Across 35 years in banking, Blake has gained deep insights into the inner working of this sector. Over the last two decades, Blake has been an Operating Committee member, leading teams and executing strategies in Credit and Enterprise Risk as well as Line of Business. His focus over this time has been primarily Commercial/Corporate with particular emphasis on CRE. Blake has spent most of his career with large and mid-size banks. Blake joined Moody’s Analytics in 2021 after leading the transformation of the credit approval and reporting process at a $25 billion bank.
Previous ArticleBCBS Amends Guidelines on Sound Management of AML/CFT Risks
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published the final templates, and the associated guidance, for collecting climate-related data for the one-off Fit-for-55 climate risk scenario analysis.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) recently published a report that recommends enhancements to the Pillar 1 framework, under the prudential rules, to capture environmental and social risks.
As a follow on from its prudential standard on the treatment of crypto-asset exposures, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) proposed disclosure requirements for crypto-asset exposures of banks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) have published results of the Basel III monitoring exercise.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) recently issued a few regulatory updates for banks, with the updated Basel implementation timelines being the key among them.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has recently set out the principles for net-zero financing and investment.
The European Commission (EC) launched a stakeholder survey on the draft International Guiding Principles for organizations developing advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
The finalization of the two sustainability disclosure standards—IFRS S1 and IFRS S2—is expected to be a significant step forward in the harmonization of sustainability disclosures worldwide.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) is expected to increase in prominence, finding traction in use cases such as lending, trading, and investing, without the intermediation of traditional financial institutions.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published reports that assessed the overall implementation of the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) and the large exposures rules in the U.S.