This paper looks at non-default losses (NDL) at CCPs and covers who should pay for what types of these losses. The paper also analyses resolution tools for non-default losses and demonstrates each of these tools on the balance sheet of a simplified CCP.
The guiding principle for allocating NDL should be who manages the risk. In line with this principle we propose for the allocation of NDL:
- In order to properly incentivise CCPs to exercise prudent risk management, CCPs and their shareholders should bear almost all NDL, in particular the entire non-default losses related to risks that are exclusively within their control. That is, CCPs should bear all NDL related to:
• operational risks.
• general business risks.
• legal risks.
• cyber risks.
• fraud (or other internal ‘bad acts’). - In some instances, clearing members and their clients may bear at least a portion of NDL related to custodial risks, settlement bank risks and investment risks. These instances are described in more detail below.
For NDL that a CCP bears itself, the CCP’s parent company and/or equity holders should bear the remaining losses in the event that a CCP’s capital or other dedicated funding is insufficient.
None of the resolution tools we analysed (cash calls, bridge CCP, write-down-and-conversion tool, variation margin gains haircutting) will provide outcomes in line with the no-creditor-worse safeguard, other than the write-down-and-conversion tool, which is very complex and might not always work if initial margin is safeguarded. None of these tools are necessary if CCP equity is sized correctly.
Documents (1) for CCP Non-Default Losses
Latest
ISDA AGM Studio: Jenny Cosco and Jason Granet
Jenny Cosco, global head of government relations and regulatory strategy at LSEG, and Jason Granet, chief investment officer at BNY, speak with Tara Kruse, ISDA’s global head of derivative products and infrastructure, about how firms can manage liquidity pressures during...
Updated OTC Derivatives Compliance Calendar
ISDA has updated its global calendar of compliance deadlines and regulatory dates for the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives space.
Capital Models Benchmarking: A Framework for Counterparty Credit Risk Internal Models
When firms implement capital models in line with supervisory standards, a range of interpretative and implementation choices inevitably arise. These choices reflect differences in modeling approaches, data availability, system architecture and risk management practices, and can lead to variation in...
ISDA AGM Studio: Joana Schlenczek & Nate Wuerffel
Joana Schlenczek, ISDA board member and head of FI rates structuring and client solutions at Santander Corporate & Investment Banking, and Nate Wuerffel, global head of market structure and head of product, global collateral, at BNY, speak with Panayiotis Dionysopoulos,...
