Competition is saving end-users from euro swaps price hikes

Swap dealers are often described as a cartel; right now, they are not acting like one

Swap dealers are often described as an oligopoly – or, less politely, a cartel. It's easy to understand why. The vast majority of the market is divvied up between a dozen-or-so banks, and they enjoy a lot of control over some of its protocols and practices – but what's happening in the euro swap market offers an interesting counterpoint.

For big clients, bid/offer spreads have barely widened over the past year, during a period in which liquidity has been draining from the dealers' go-to hedges. The interdealer market is less deep than it was, as is the Bund futures market. In both cases, banks claim the size of trade they can execute for a given spread is roughly half what it was a few years ago. Put crudely, banks face a choice between hedging immediately – and paying away some or all of their profit – or hedging over a longer period, but accepting more risk in the meantime.

In most manufacturing businesses, increasing raw materials costs would result in the price rising for the customer. So, on the face of it, swaps end-users should be paying a wider spread.

According to one trading head, very senior supervisors have been making this point in private – rather than complaining that regulation is making the business uneconomical, banks should start charging more.

So, why aren't they?

In most manufacturing businesses, increasing raw materials costs would result in the price rising for the customer

The banks put it down to competition, pressure from senior management to grow revenues, and the strategic drive to internalise more client flow rather than pay brokers to find a hedge. To put it more dramatically, if everyone is fighting for their lives – as individuals and institutions – it takes a brave trader to send business elsewhere.

"Everyone is in the mode of ‘We want to win market share, we need to see the flow, we're not prop trading as much, we need to be in front of the client'. And management is beating them up saying ‘We need to be up in the rankings'. So I don't think it's a natural instinct to widen bid-offers," says one fixed-income trading head.

An economist might see this as a collective action problem: if dealers could all agree to widen bid/offers by a minimum amount, and stick to it, decreased liquidity in interdealer swaps and futures would not be an issue.

But that won't happen, and it demonstrates how much competition exists in this peculiar oligopoly.

  • LinkedIn  
  • Save this article
  • Print this page  

Duncan Wood

Editor-in-chief , Risk.net

Duncan Wood is the London-based editor-in-chief of Risk.net. He was promoted to the role at the start of 2015, to lead the editorial reorganisation of the website and its print titles. Duncan had been editor of Risk magazine since July 2011. He rejoined Risk as European editor in October 2009, having originally worked for Risk and Asia Risk in London and Hong Kong as a writer and researcher between 1998 and 2000.

In the intervening years, Duncan was news editor for the Oliver Wyman-founded online start-up ERisk.com. He also worked freelance for six years while living in Germany, with his work appearing in Euromoney, Financial News, IFR, and The Wall Street Journal, as well as Risk magazine and its sister titles.

Duncan has written about derivatives and risk throughout his 17-year career in journalism. He is a Neal Awards finalist, and has also won Incisive Media’s journalist and editor of the year awards.

Read more on Duncan

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 indvidual account here: