On January 22, ISDA and FIA jointly responded to a consultation from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on proposed amendments to the capital framework for approved exchanges and approved clearing houses. The scope of the response is limited to the capital framework for approved clearing houses.
The associations welcome the introduction of a separate liquidity requirement and propose that MAS consider a more conservative minimum threshold of at least 12 months of operating expenses. The associations also agree with the proposed amendments to eligible capital components, which should only include equity instruments and exclude an approved clearing house’s skin in the game. For the total risk requirement, the response suggests the alignment of the operational risk component with the liquidity risk requirement and the inclusion of some clarifications on the investment risk and general counterparty risk components.
Documents (1) for ISDA Response to Proposed Singapore Capital Amendments
Latest
Transition to Mandatory Central Clearing
US Treasury securities sit at the heart of global financial markets and serve as one of the primary forms of high-quality collateral across derivatives and securities financing markets. The transition to mandatory central clearing of US Treasuries therefore has implications...
ISDA Publishes Updated ISDA SIMM Governance
ISDA has published an updated version of the ISDA SIMM® Governance Framework, which sets out the principles under which the ISDA Standard Initial Margin Model® operates and the process through which it will be reviewed and amended on a consistent...
ISDA Response to PRA IMA Consultation
On September 18, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Institute of International Finance and UK Finance submitted a joint response to the UK Prudential Regulation Authority consultation on adjustments to the internal model approach (IMA) for the...
Calibration Test – IQ September 2026
Calibrating capital requirements is a highly complex undertaking and getting it wrong can have serious consequences. Too much lenience might lead to banks holding insufficient capital to mitigate their risks. But excess conservatism can put balance sheets under strain, forcing...