Unlevel playing field for CCP members concerns banks
The CFTC has proposed a $50 million cap on minimum capital requirements for clearing members, a move that could open membership to a number of smaller financial institutions not subject to Basel capital rules. Some bankers warn this could create an unlevel playing field, particularly around the capital charge for CCP default fund exposures. By Laurie Carver
The pace at which new regulations are flying out of the door on both sides of the Atlantic has long worried bankers, who argue certain requirements may not have been fully thought through and may lead to unintended consequences. The rules around central counterparties (CCPs) are a case in point, reckon some observers.
On the one hand, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is pushing for wider membership of clearing houses by proposing a cap on minimum capital requirements demanded by
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management
The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?
Bankers divided over new CCAR scenario designed to bridge supervisory gap exposed by SVB failure
Industry warns CFTC against rushing to regulate AI for trading
Vote on workplan pulled amid calls to avoid duplicating rules from other regulatory agencies
Bank of Communications moves early to meet TLAC requirements
China Construction Bank becomes last China G-Sib to release TLAC plans
Industry pushes to extend review for Emir active accounts rule
Fears that compressed timeframe leaves less than a year to test if controversial policy is working
Banks will not be frowned upon for discount window borrowing – Fed official
Risk Live: more banks have completed paperwork to access Fed lending facility than a year ago
Most read
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Filling gaps in market data with optimal transport
- The American way: a stress-test substitute for Basel’s IRRBB?