The proposed Emir 3.0 trade reform is seen as generally helpful to the trade clearing industry, but market participants were unenthusiastic about a provision obliging EU-based banks, insurers, pension funds and governments to hold an active account at and make certain trades through an EU-based trading house. Experts at an event held Wednesday said it will increase costs, pose operational challenges and disrupt the practice of ‹block trading›, with one labelling it an “import tax” forcing the market to “import liquidity”.
“What active account is essentially saying is that it forces markets to trade at Eurex, which means that you’re forcing a market to essentially import liquidity from LCH,» said Pierre-Antoine Masset, counterparty manager and product owner at Nordea Asset Management. If this is added to the costs of operation, he said, ”It really sounds like and smells like an import tax, that European market players would have to pay for that liquidity.”
The Eurex Exchange is an EU-based international exchange.
Huge backload
“If we are mandated to clear everything at Eurex, it means that we need to set up all the risk,” said Masset. “There is a huge kind of backload of onboarding to be done on that.”
“For this kind of logic, we would have to build into the portfolio management but also the trading system and be in a position that it’s supported downstream in all of the further settlement processes and accounting systems,” said Christian Schmaus, senior policy and regulatory affairs advisor at Allianz Global Investors. “It sounds easy, but it’s quite challenging actually to come up with this methodology and embed it into the trading and portfolio management process.”
The obligation to have certain trades clear in the EU will disrupt the industry’s practice of block trading, in which the trading firm gathers together trades from funds in a given strategy, to come up with one larger trade that is executed and allocated to the respective accounts.
Block trading issue
“Now in this kind of block trading, this won’t work, obviously if a part of that would have to go to an EU CCP, whereas the other parts go to a non-EU CCP,” said Schmaus. “Because of the different pricing spreads and so on involved, we would have to somehow split the blocks initially.”
“If we were to move the euro swaps out of LCH and move them into Eurex, what you then find is that you end up paying two separate margins at two different CCPs,” said Nafisa Yusuf, director for market structure at BlackRock. “But you find that the margin at LCH increases because you have fewer netting opportunities.”
LCH is a British-based clearing house group which has an EU subsidiary.
Schmaus at Allianz said he could prefer ensuring organic growth by increasing EU CCPs’ attractiveness rather than legislating certain clearing. “I think that mandating will not add much to the financial stability, from my perspective.”
Other elements of the EMIR 3.0 package got more positive reactions.
Improved product availability
“We do see tendencies that will improve the product availability,” said Schmaus, who said his firm sees “CCPs being in a position to come up with new product ideas, bring them to market faster and thereby allow a broader range of products.”
Schaus also pointed to the benefits of the proposal around margin model transparency. “Having the transparency of margin models from the CCP to the clearing broker and finally to the asset managers/buy side, as well as the clients or end users of the products…is fundamental to understand and plan for cash management and forecasting.”
Having this transparency “is very positive…in light of further growth,” he said.
Managing liquidity risk
“Transparency and predictability of the CCPs initial margin are really important in managing liquidity risk, and ensuring that our clients can cover their margin calls during a strained environment,” said Yusuf of BlackRock.
Barry Hadingham, head of derivatives and counterparty risk at Aviva Investors identified an aspect of the market infrastructure legislation as “a competitive advantage”. In the EU, he said, “all clearinghouses are effectively treated as credit institutions…which gives them access to central bank liquidity,” he said.