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
SwapsInfo Full Year 2024 and Q4 2024
Interest rate derivatives (IRD) trading activity increased in 2024, driven by interest rate volatility, adjustments in central bank policies and shifting market expectations on inflation and economic growth. Index credit derivatives also saw increased activity, as measured by traded notional,...
ISDA Response on UK MIFID Transaction Reporting
On February 14, ISDA submitted a response to the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) discussion paper 24/2 on improving the UK transaction reporting regime under the UK Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) framework. The FCA indicated it is making...
Saudi Capital Markets Event Welcome Remarks
Capital Markets & the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia February 19, 2025 Opening Remarks Scott O’Malia ISDA Chief Executive Good morning, everyone. I’d like to add my thanks to Saudi Tadawul Group for working with us on this event, as...
Appropriate Capital Regs Needed for Liquid Markets
The Basel III capital framework was designed to strengthen the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks in response to weaknesses exposed by the global financial crisis. As the last components of the framework are finalized and implemented around the...