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
Expanding Legal Agreement Coverage in the CDM
This paper examines the recent extension of the Common Domain Model (CDM)1 to represent two of the most significant, and previously undeveloped, areas of its legal agreement model: umbrella agreements and contract amendments. Umbrella agreements are widely used to document...
ISDA Omnibus Canadian Representation Letter
On September 2, ISDA published the Omnibus Canadian Representation Letter, which combines previously published representation letters drafted to assist firms in compliance with Canadian trade reporting, business conduct, regulatory margin and clearing classification rules. The Omnibus Canadian Letter is designed...
Joint Response on Cross-margining
On August 31, ISDA and FIA submitted a letter to the US Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the agencies’ joint request for comment on the implementation of portfolio margining and cross-margining...
Accounting for Carbon Credits: Latest Developments
This paper updates and extends the analysis set out in ISDA’s October 2023 paper on accounting for carbon credits. While preserving the original focus on the accounting treatment of voluntary carbon credits (VCCs) and compliance carbon credits (CCCs), it expands...
