US-European divergence over default funds

Quotes of the quarter

quotation-marks

Ignacio Solloa, deputy chief executive of Madrid-based central counterparty MEFF
Our philosophy has always been to have a relatively small default fund. We didn’t have a default fund until recently because our philosophy was to have a loss-sharing mechanism as small as possible. The risks have to be identified and covered by the risk-bearing member. If a member is producing risk, that should be covered by the collateral and the margins you require from that member. Only as a last resort should

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 [email protected] or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

If you already have an account, please sign in here.

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here: