CCP debate needs to go beyond skin in the game

Discussion needs to move on to how to keep markets functioning in a default


So far the debate on clearing house sustainability has focussed narrowly on how much 'skin in the game' participants must have in order to absorb the impact of the default of one or more clearing members. However, to capture the true risk posed, this discussion must broaden to how these same participants are incentivised to maintain commitment to a clearing house through times of stress. If debate continues solely on how much more capital either a clearing member (CM) or central counterparty

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 or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact 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 View our subscription options

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


Want to know what’s included in our free registration? Click here

This address will be used to create your account

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a 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