Asian regulators need to step up to swaps challenge
Markets on the cusp of change require new supervisory capabilities
Asian derivatives markets could look very different in 2018, as the attraction of Hong Kong and Singapore as hubs for booking derivatives strengthens amid global regulatory change and Britain’s looming exit from the European Union.
The growing appeal should boost the Asian-Pacific region’s market share in the nearly $543 trillion global derivatives market. Banks such as HSBC, Standard Chartered and Deutsche Bank now largely book trades through London, but Brexit and the upcoming second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive have led to moves to decentralise their booking models, including the migration of Asia-based listed or over-the-counter derivatives transactions back into the region.
The shift, when it happens, will mark a major change from remote booking activities, where trades are made in one legal entity in an Asian country, while the risks are booked in another legal entity in the UK. This remote booking is intended to glean more favourable capital treatment and operational efficiencies.
While there are still a few more steps to be completed before the transition starts, the looming changes should encourage regulators in Hong Kong and Singapore to gear up quickly to ensure the integrity of the banking system and markets remains intact. Through increased local derivatives booking, supervisors could end up overseeing rather more systemic and complex risk than at present.
Advanced internal models for dealers are both a prerequisite to foster the Asian booking hubs, and also a useful tool to supervise them adequately. Internal models would lower capital requirements, and also push banks to up their game, because they are supposed to be able to calculate accurately the risks inherent in their derivatives portfolios down to the granular level.
In theory, the transition shouldn’t be that complicated. Global banks already employ models for calculating their derivatives exposure which are approved by regulators in major jurisdictions, such as UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
Yet, therein lies the catch as well. While banks may attempt to replicate their London booking models when they operate out of an Asian financial hub, concerns remain as to whether the regulatory standards in Asia will match those in the UK.
Regulators need to constantly monitor the internal models to ensure risks don’t build up. That requires proficiency in sifting through the banks’ models, which the regulators currently don’t fully possess given that local rules require banks to operate only using the standardised approach. Supervisors also need to build a strong team of quantitative analysts to study the models and suggest countermeasures to mitigate risks.
The PRA, for instance, is said to have a team of six quant analysts just to look at the banks’ models for derivatives booking. There will be more analysts overseeing other parts of the trading desk. Such talent globally and especially in emerging markets is in short supply. And, of course, regulators will be competing for such resources with the banks, which are also beefing up their teams ahead of the shift. This is not a contest the regulators will relish given the difference in pay scales.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has been hiring quant analysts and holding discussions with individual banks to explain its supervisory policies and processes for derivatives hubs. The Monetary Authority of Singapore looks to be a little ahead, with some analysts already in place. It wants financial institutions to demonstrate they have robust risk management systems and processes to measure and validate the accuracy and consistency of all relevant risk components.
The likelihood of two booking hubs in the region does offer a silver lining – the diversification of risk. It increasingly looks like Hong Kong would handle trades made in China and the North Asia region while Singapore would be a location for trades originating in South-east and South Asia regions.
コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。
これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
現在、このコンテンツを印刷することはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(ポイント2.4)に記載されているように、印刷は1部のみです。
追加の権利を購入したい場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
このコンテンツは、当社の記事ツールを使用して共有することができます。当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(第2.4項)に概説されているように、認定ユーザーは、個人的な使用のために資料のコピーを1部のみ作成することができます。また、2.5項の制限にも従わなければなりません。
追加権利の購入をご希望の場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
詳細はこちら 我々の見解
AIエージェントが、信頼できないスタッフのような存在である理由
GenAIシステムに内在する不確実性により、リスク管理担当者はより対立的なアプローチをとらざるを得ません
批判派は、パーペチュアルはすべてフロスだと言っています。しかし、数字はそうではないことを示唆している
TradFiを原資産とする永久先物に対する堅調な未決済建玉は、CMEやEurexといった既存の取引所にとって脅威となる可能性があります
SpaceXがCMEの個別銘柄先物に待望の追い風をもたらした
S&P 500先物契約へのIPO関連の追加契約として、新たな契約が急増する可能性があります
Bank vs non-bank: FX’s two-tier reality
CME and LSEG data show banks provide sticky and broad liquidity, while non-banks cling tightly to the price
規制当局はエンフォースメントを甘くしているのか?(そして、私たちはそれを気にするべきなのか?)
米国の規制当局は、技術的な規則違反に対する罰則を緩和しており、小さくとも重要なリスクが見過ごされてしまうのではないかという懸念が高まっています
FX HedgePoolを超えて:オール・トゥ・オール(All-to-All)の今後はどうなる?
この取引モデルの支持者たちは、その将来性を明るく見ていますが、普及に向けた障壁は依然として残っています。
バーゼル協定のCVA見直し:米国では説得力があるものの、欧州ではそれほどではない
信用リスクモデルの使用禁止は、米国の銀行がより高度なCVA手法を採用するきっかけとなる可能性があります
オルタナティブ・データは予測市場に賭けているのか?
新たなデータの豊富な情報源を提供する一方で、法的な不確実性は依然として残っています