As EMIR moves forward to its next milestones, central clearing, one of its major pillars (if not the core of EMIR) , is the next big challenge for all of us, assuming that trade reporting is already analysed and now in a testing phase.
In order to facilitate the use of central clearing, EMIR recognises that contracts can also be cleared through “indirect clearing”, i.e. that counterparties who are not themselves clearing members can use the services of CCP members to meet their clients’ requirements which is really important, as for many counterparties, which are subject to a clearing obligation but unwilling or unsuitable to become direct clearing members or direct clients of clearing members, indirect clearing will be the only option available to satisfy their clearing obligation. However, it should be noted that it is not a mandatory obligation on clearing members to provide indirect clearing services.
Several concerns arise with regards to indirect clearing, one of which is expressed by Daniela Russo, director general payments and market infrastructure at the European Central Bank (ECB), quoted in Risk’s article yesterday saying that indirect clearing model needs work and that Regulators need to provide greater clarity on the capital treatment of it.
“Indirect clearing and the concerns of banks have probably to be addressed by banking regulation. But definitely, I agree this is an area where it would be good to provide clarification on both the risks to be addressed and the implications for capital charges with a view to creating the right incentives,” says Russo.
But this is not the only thing to consider, If indirect clearing is ever to work in practice.
- Should the Clearing Members decide to provide indirect clearing services, they need to be on reasonable commercial terms.
- CCPs need to prove that they have the means to identify and deal with indirect clearing relationships conducted through the clearing member following a clearing members´ default. This of course will depend on the segregation solution applied.
- Clearing members who will facilitate indirect clearing, and clients through which indirect clearing will be carried out, should ensure that they are able to port indirect clients’ assets and positions to an alternative non-defaulting clearing member.
- Clearing members must have in place procedures for managing the default of an indirect clearing member and its clients. The procedure adopted would depend on the degree of protection provided to the indirect clearing members’ clients.
As per Goldman Sach’s comments on the discussion paper on OTC Derivatives and CCPs prior to RTS issuance, “The existing use of indirect clearing arrangements involve a degree of counterparty risk, as does a direct clearing relationship. If the use of indirect clearing arrangements imposes a higher barrier to entry than a direct clearing relationship, then it will not be viable”.
Other Posts Relating to EMIR and Client Clearing
- A Guide to the EMIR Trade Reporting Obligations – Part 1 04-Dec-2013
- OTC equivalency: A regulatory tug-of-war? 04-Dec-2013
- Weekly Roundup | European & General Regulation | 3 December 2013 02-Dec-2013
- UPIs, UTIs and LEIs: Key issues and methods 29-Nov-2013
- A quartet becomes a sextet 28-Nov-2013
- Weekly Roundup | Post-Trade Processing and Clearing | 25 November 2013 24-Nov-2013
- Weekly Roundup | European Regulation | 25 November 2013 24-Nov-2013
- Weekly Roundup | Post-Trade Processing | 18 November 2013 18-Nov-2013
- Weekly Roundup | Regulation | 18 November 2013 18-Nov-2013
- ESMA Announce New Q&A to Address Lack of Delay in ETD Reporting 15-Nov-2013