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
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.