www.catalyst.co.uk Catalyst Update: Final CRD IV Rules: Impact on Capital Requirements for Counterparty Credit Risk November 2012 Introduction In July 2011, the European Commission published a proposal version of the Capital Requirements Directive, which is the European implementation of the Basel III rules and provides a much needed refresh of the existing capital requirements framework. What is known is that EU Member States have to transpose, and firms of the financial service industry have to apply, the CRD from January 1, 2013, although the UK FSA is postponing the implementation date of CRD IV to July 1, 2013. It is likely that other EU member states will follow. CRD IV introduces All European entities will have to comply with CRD IV, while their counterparts in other jurisdictions (ie the US) will need to comply with their local Basel III implementation. New liquidity requirements A re-definition of what constitutes ‘capital’ A vote on the final text by the Commission was expected to take place during 2012, but has been repeatedly delayed and at the time of writing (end November 2012) has still not been released. Amended capital deductions Increased levels of capital required A number of new capital buffers The implementation of new leverage requirements Strengthened requirements for the management and capitalisation of counterparty credit risk Requirements for more detailed public disclosures of regulatory capital bases. Understanding and preparing for the challenges created by this new regulation will drive the key strategic and operational decisions required to consolidate and build competitive positioning for all market participants. This paper looks at the impact of the currently proposed CRD IV text on both buy1 and sell sides, with regards to the strengthening of capital requirements to reduce counterparty credit risk on trade exposures. Incentivisation of Central Counterparty Clearing Under CRD 1V rules, material capital savings can occur for institutions entering their trades into clearing, either through Clearing Brokers or through a direct CCP Membership. counterparties for bilateral OTC derivatives (and possibly, if the IOSCO proposal from July 2012 is accepted, the introduction of a margin requirement for bilateral trades) Clients of Clearing brokers face stringent requirements to get capital reliefs Large Exposure limits – trade exposures to a single counterparty or group of connected counterparties of above 25% will require additional capital (on a scale from 200% to 1250%) to cover the counterparty risk. Conversely, capital requirements for cleared trades are slightly raised to 2% (from currently 0%) if certain prerequisite criteria are fulfilled by the Clearing Broker, the CCP (and the buy-side Clearing trades under CRD IV will result in substantial capital savings (compared to bilateral trades) for buy and sell sides alike. client): Bilateral trading will become more expensive with the introduction of a CVA charge and a possible margin requirement for bilateral trades. The objective of recent regulation has been to reduce risks across the board - and Central Counterparty Clearing is seen as the means to that end. Bi-lateral trading of OTC Derivatives is being dis-incentivised with the need for high capital requirements (any bilateral trade will receive a minimum capital weighting of 20%, which can be much higher if there is a substantial element of trade activity to counterparties A+ and below and/or for longer maturity products) 1. the introduction of a CVA charge to hedge against a deterioration in the credit quality of institutions’ 1 Buy side is defined as banks and investment firms © Catalyst Development Ltd The CCP, on which trades are cleared (a) is authorised to provide Clearing Services in the Clearing Member’s state (b) publicly confirms that the CCP complies with recommendations for central counterparties published by CPSSIOSCO (c) does not reject the trades However, clients of Clearing Brokers who are not direct members of CCPs face more stringent requirements in order to receive capital reliefs. The CCP and the Clearing Broker of the clients have to guarantee portability of assets and positions in the event that the Clearing Broker defaults. The Portability guarantee is accompanied by the implied requirement that the client provides the Clearing Broker and the CCP with a minimum of one Back-up Broker to which to port positions. A Back-up Clearing Broker contractually bound to a client is exempt from the capital requirements for counterparty credit risk exposure for those assets. 2 The Clearing Broker has to provide asset and position protection for all clearing related transactions. If assets are protected from a default of the Clearing Broker, then exposures to the collateral are exempt from capital requirements. The client’s assets and positions need to be segregated from other clients and from the CB’s own positions and assets at the Clearing Broker and the CCP level. So on a simplistic basis, clearing trades under CRD IV will result in substantial capital savings (compared to bi-lateral trades) for buy and sell sides alike. and one or many of its clients happens. This 4% weighting does not exist in CRD IV. Differences to Basel III will prevail in future, and possibly widen. Despite a single European rulebook being introduced in the near future, local regulators have been given the right to impose higher (than 2%) capital requirements for cleared trades. At this time (November 2012), no Regulator has made an announcement in this respect. Global players with entities in other jurisdictions will find it difficult to implement one approach due to regional implementation differences of the Basel III rulebook. What is the impact of CRD IV? Differences to Basel III The CRD IV proposal differs from the Basel III regulations with regard to the Capital requirements for counterparty risk in mainly three points: The EC applies a 0% weighting as a stabilising measure (most likely politically motivated) for trade exposures to selected Central Banks and Sovereigns. Basel III includes a Loss Protection for clients as part of the qualification criteria for the application of a reduced risk weighting of 2% for centrally cleared trades – a Clearing Broker must provide its clients protection from losses due to (a) its own default/insolvency (b) the default/insolvency of one or many of its clients; and (c) the joint default/insolvency of itself and one or many of its clients. Basel III consists of a 4% risk weighting for cleared trades in the event that the Portability, Segregation, Asset Protection criteria are satisfied, but clients are only provided a Loss Protection in the case a joint default/insolvency of the Clearing Broker Clearing trades under CRD IV will result in substantial capital savings (compared to bilateral trades) for buy and sell sides alike. © Catalyst Development Ltd Mandatory clearing of clearable derivatives will drive buy-side clients in either of two directions: (1) to move out of products which are subject to mandatory clearing or (2) to choose Clearing Brokers which offer Client Clearing services for the relevant products and fulfil the CRD IV requirements to qualify the client for capital relief for trade exposures. Global players with entities in other jurisdictions will find it difficult to implement one approach due to regional implementation differences of the Basel III rulebook. Clients resisting a change of their portfolio to include more clearable OTC transactions will not only suffer high capital requirements but also be subject to CVA charges and possibly margin requirements for remaining bilateral. Clearing Brokers in turn will struggle to satisfy the increased demand for Client Clearing Services and for increasing number of client requests to act as Back-up Clearing Brokers in the event of their primary Clearing Broker going into default or becoming insolvent. Specifically, portability will be a big issue for Clearing Brokers. Accepting a client portfolio from a defaulting Clearing member will most likely result in an additional default fund contribution by the CCP, which in turn would require more capital to be held against it. 3 There are many other challenges to be addressed by sell-side institutions resulting out of the counterparty credit risk measures stipulated by CRD IV. These include: indirect clearing responsibilities (for clients of intermediary Clearing brokers) higher quality asset requirements by CCPs (which will stress a Clearing Brokers ability to transform ineligible collateral from a client into eligible ones) disappearing benefits of and profitability in relation to offering client clearing services, regulatory uncertainty (such as the Danish Compromise from April 2012) regulatory implementation variations in different regions, compliance with other non harmonised regulation. What should market participants do before the CRD IV implementation date? clients the sought after capital relief for cleared transactions. The majority of Buy-side clients have not made any decisions yet on what their next steps will be. Buy-sides waiting for final regulations to be defined could face being eviction from the OTC market. One of the most important tasks will be contractually to fix relationships with Back-up Clearing Brokers, which in turn will only agree to assume a Back-up Clearing Broker role under heavily limited and constraint conditions. Generally the Clearing Broker offerings are being geared towards the larger hedge funds and asset managers. Medium and smaller banks with OTC derivatives portfolios face the choice of either applying for direct membership of CCPs or terminating their use of OTC derivatives. Despite regulatory uncertainty, and the possibility of further requirements to be added to the final text, it is crucial that all market participants are fully prepared in advance of the implementation date. Although the final text has yet to be released, we do not anticipate any material change from the existing drafts. Sell-sides will initially have to focus on understanding the raft of new regulations with regard to Derivatives Clearing, specifically with a focus on regional implementation differences, and then re-assess - not dissimilar to the buyside clients - their future strategy in relation to the OTC Derivatives business. A majority of buy-side clients will not yet have made any decisions on their long-term OTC strategy. However, as the implementation deadline approaches, it is imperative that the buy-sides are either ready to implement the changes needed to receive capital relief, or pull out of the OTC market altogether. There is a risk that buy-sides who wait too long will very quickly be forced out of the OTC market. Another impact of the regulation is that those OTC products for which no clearing solution exists (such as cross currency swaps) may become more expensive and thus less economic to use. Users will be seeking to proxy the economic impact of these products through the use of exchange traded or vanilla swaps. Buy-side clients also need to review their longterm trading / investment strategy and assess whether they want to restructure their portfolio to take advantage of reduced capital requirements for cleared trades and substitute non clearable transactions with economically similar clearable ones. It is likely that sell-sides will initially be cautious to offer client clearing services which will provide capital relief to most buy-side clients, and that a secondary market of intermediary Clearing Brokers will develop. This will be accompanied by technological, infrastructure and operational challenges within each market participant. It is imperative to conduct this assessment at the earliest possible timeframe, as contractual reviews and (re-)negotiations with Clearing Brokers traditionally take their time, especially if less favourable criteria, such as portability, need to be included in order to provide buy-side © Catalyst Development Ltd 4 Conclusion As the CRD IV and Basel III implementation date approaches, those sell-sides and the buysides which adapt to the changing regulatory requirements the best will be reaping the highest benefits, either in the form of capital savings or increased business flow. It is therefore imperative for both sides to assess their own long-term trading strategy and to choose their next steps as early as possible - or be forced into a decision by the market. Catalyst uniquely combines teams of financial markets experts with organisational change specialists to deliver enduring results. We provide honest guidance to help you succeed. We are catalysts for enduring excellence. Catalyst Development Ltd, 167 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2EA T +44 (0) 870 901 4155 F +44 (0) 871 433 8876 www.catalyst.co.uk © Catalyst Development Ltd christianlee@catalyst.co.uk sharequehusain-syed@catalyst.co.uk 5