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 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...
Response to SEC on FICC Guaranty Fund
On September 1, ISDA and FIA submitted a joint response to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), supporting the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation’s (FICC) proposal to establish a dedicated guaranty fund at its government securities division (GSD). FICC had...
