Mondays always get me down

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….

Natixis CIB Adopts ISDA’s DRR

ISDA has announced that Natixis CIB has adopted ISDA’s Digital Regulatory Reporting (DRR) solution, enabling the bank to meet regulatory reporting requirements more efficiently and accurately. The ISDA DRR uses the Common Domain Model (CDM) – an open-source data standard...

Paper on MIFIR PTT

On April 7, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) and the European Banking Federation (EBF) published a paper on proposals relating to post-trade transparency (PTT) under the Markets in Financial Instruments...

Data Integrity for Single-sided Reporting

On April 2, ISDA published a paper on why single-sided reporting does not compromise the quality and integrity of data received by supervisors. The paper addresses concerns among regulators that moving from dual-sided reporting would adversely affect the quality of...

Paper on Removal of SI Regime

On April 2, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) published an update to a paper, originally published in October 2025, on the practical implications of the systematic internalizer (SI) regime...