A decent weekend. Not much going on…
And then, on Monday morning, bam! Breaking news from The Wall Street Journal: “Big U.S. Banks Make Swaps A Foreign Affair”. The story basically posits that US banks are using their overseas affiliates to write some swaps with non-US counterparties without a parent company guarantee. This means that the transactions would not fall under the purview of US regulators.
Sounds troubling.
But as the infomercials say: Wait! There’s more!
A lot more.
First, the transactions would in fact fall under the purview of regulators in the jurisdictions in which they are done.
Second, on the major systemic risk issues (clearing, trade reporting, margining), there is likely to be little to no substantive difference between major jurisdictions.
So this clearly is not a case of regulatory arbitrage. It’s really about the fact that some customers do not want or have the capacity to understand and comply with regulations in two different jurisdictions. These non-US customers prefer doing business with non-US firms. They don’t want to trade on SEFs. So the US firms are structuring their businesses to meet this demand.
Most people know all of this, as the Journal article acknowledges.
So what’s really the issue? Apparently, it’s the fact there are some differences between jurisdictions in the timing and substance of trade execution rules. So some see the shift to trading overseas as a way for firms to avoid trading on SEFs, which they view as a bad thing, because:
“For US regulators, the new rules aim to bring swaps trading into the open and protect the US financial system from firms amassing huge derivatives positions in non-US markets.”
But that’s not the role of SEFs – that’s what clearing and trade reporting are all about. And as we noted, on these issues there’s not much if any difference between jurisdictions.
One final thought: the article begins with a chart that purports to show concentration in the derivatives markets. The data in question, however, is for the US only and includes only US banks. As we have written, the derivatives markets are truly global, and a look at our report here shows a more accurate picture.
Misperceptions like this… that’s why we’re hangin’ around, with nothing to do but frown….
Latest
Response to EC Consultation on MICA Review
On September 29, ISDA responded to the European Commission’s (EC) targeted consultation on the review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MICA). ISDA’s response focuses on tokenization in over-the-counter derivatives and collateral markets. It argues that tokenized collateral can enable...
ISDA DTF Hong Kong: Steven Kennedy Remarks
ISDA Derivatives Trading Forum Hong Kong November 12, 2026 Opening Remarks Steven Kennedy Global Head of Public Policy, ISDA Good morning, and welcome to the ISDA Derivatives Trading Forum. It’s great to be here in Hong Kong – thanks for...
2026 FX Definitions: Act Now
On November 22, 2027, the 2026 FX Definitions will come into effect. From that point, these definitions will become the market standard for all cleared and new non-cleared FX derivatives, and the Swift messaging service will halt its support of...
IRD Trading in Mainland China and Hong Kong
This report examines interest rate derivatives (IRD) trading activity in mainland China and Hong Kong in the first half of 2026. Onshore renminbi (RMB) IRD traded notional in mainland China rose to $3.4 trillion in the first half of 2026,...
