I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Europe lately, and this gives a rather interesting perspective on US derivatives regulatory policy.
Specifically, on the efforts of Frankendodd’s Igor, Gary Gensler, to make US regulation extraterritorial
Things came to a head when the head of the CFTC’s clearing and risk division, Ananda Radhakrishnan, said ICE and LCH, both of which clear US-traded futures contracts out of the UK, could avoid cross-border issues arising from inconsistencies between EU and US regulation (relating mainly to collateral segregation rules) by moving to the US:
Striking a marked contrast with European regulators calling for a collaborative cross-border approach to regulation, a senior CFTC official said he was “tired” of providing exemptions, referring in particular to discrepancies between the US Dodd-Frank framework and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (Emir) on clearing futures and the protection of related client collateral.
“To me, the first response cannot be: ‘CFTC, you’ve got to provide an exemption’,” said Radhakrishnan, the director of the clearing and risk division at the CFTC.
Radhakrishnan singled out LCH.Clearnet and the InterContinental Exchange as two firms affected by the inconsistent regulatory frameworks on listed derivatives as a result of clearing US business through European-based derivatives clearing organisations (DCOs).
“ICE and LCH have a choice. They both have clearing organisations in the United States. If they move the clearing of these futures contracts… back to a US only DCO I believe this conflict doesn’t exist,” he added.
“These two entities can engage in some self-help. If they do that, neither (regulator) will have to provide an exemption.”
It was not just what he said, but how he said it. The “I’m tired” rhetoric, and his general mien, was quite grating to Europeans.
The issue is whether the US will accept EU clearing rules as equivalent, and whether the EU will reciprocate. Things are pressing, because there is a December deadline for the EU to recognize US CCPs as equivalent. If this doesn’t happen, European banks that use a US CCP (e.g., Barclays holding a Eurodollar futures position cleared through the CME) will face a substantially increased capital charge on the cleared positions.
Right now there is a huge game of chicken going on between the EU and the US. In response to what Europe views as US obduracy, the Europeans approved five Asian/Australasian CCPs as operating under rules equivalent to Europe’s, allowing European banks to clear though them without incurring the punitive capital charges. To emphasize the point, the EU’s head of financial services, Michael Barnier, said the US could get the same treatment if it deferred to EU rules (something which Radhakrishnan basically said he was tired of talking about):
“If the CFTC also gives effective equivalence to third country CCPs, deferring to strong and rigorous rules in jurisdictions such as the EU, we will be able to adopt equivalence decisions very soon,” Barnier said.
Read this as a giant one finger salute from the EU to the CFTC.
So we have a Mexican standoff, and the clock is ticking. If the EU and the US don’t resolve matters, the world derivatives markets will become even more fragmented. This will make them less competitive, which is cruelly ironic given that one of Gensler’s claims was that his regulatory agenda would make the markets more competitive. This was predictably wrong-and some predicted this unintended perverse outcome.
Another part of Gensler’s agenda was to extend US regulatory reach to entities operating overseas whose failure could threaten US financial institutions. One of his major criteria for identifying such entities was whether they are guaranteed by a US institution. Those who are so guaranteed are considered “US persons,” and hence subject to the entire panoply of Frankendodd requirements, including notably the Sef mandate. The Sef mandate is loathed by European corporates, so this would further fragment the swaps market. (And as I have said often before, since end users are the alleged beneficiaries of the Sef mandate-Gary oft’ told us so!-it is passing strange that they are hell-bent on escaping it.)
European US bank affiliates with guarantees from US parents have responded by terminating the guarantees. Problem solved, right? The dreaded guarantees that could spread contagion from Europe to the US are gone, after all.
But US regulators and legislators view this as a means of evading Frankendodd. Which illustrates the insanity of it all. The SEF mandate has nothing to do with systemic risk or contagion. Since the ostensible purpose of the DFA was to reduce systemic risk, it was totally unnecessary to include the SEF mandate. But in its wisdom, the US Congress did, and Igor pursued this mandate with relish.
The attempts to dictate the mode of trade execution even by entities that cannot directly spread contagion to the US via guarantees epitomizes the overreach of the US. Any coherent systemic risk rationale is totally absent. The mode of execution is of no systemic importance. The elimination of guarantees eliminates the ability of failing foreign affiliates to impact directly US financial institutions. If anything, the US should be happy, because some of the dread interconnections that Igor Gensler inveighed against have been severed.
But the only logic that matters her is that of control. And the US and the Europeans are fighting over control. The ultimate outcome will be a more fragmented, less competitive, and likely less robust financial system.
This is just one of the things that Gensler hath wrought. I could go on. And in the future I will.
Content belongs to Streetwise Professor. For the original please click