
Initial margin: the final act

Practice makes perfect, the saying goes. When it comes to the final wave of implementation for uncleared margin rules, however, this may not hold true.
On September 1 of this year – six years after the first batch of dealers were forced to post initial margin (IM) on bilateral swaps – the sixth and final cohort will be swept into the global regime.
The compliance process has been tried, tested and improved upon over the years – yet this final hurdle represents a challenge like no other. The estimated 775 firms set to breach the threshold – €8 billion average aggregate notional amount (AANA) of bilateral swaps – is more than the previous five phases combined. The cohort breaks down to a whopping 5,400 counterparty relationships, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (Isda).
Even accounting for exchange threshold relief, which permits those with IM exchange amounts below €50 million to trade without documents, Isda believes at least 1,000 relationships require repapering and custody account setups. Some fear a repeat of the bottlenecks that plagued the first phase and cast a shadow over phase five.
“A bottleneck continues to be the biggest enemy for phase six, especially when you look at custodians,” says one lawyer working with phase six clients on IM implementation.
It’s not just the numbers. While the buy side dominated the 300 or so firms caught in phase five, a drop in the AANA threshold from €50 billion to just €8 billion spreads the requirements across a far broader assemblage of derivatives users. This includes funds subject to other regulatory frameworks, such as Ucits funds. One investment manager warns of an “existential clash” between consumer protection rules aimed at fostering liquidity and those intended to eliminate systemic risk.
Many firms coming into scope have limited access to the most commonly used collateral – highly rated government bonds. Some may choose to post eligible equities, others may balk at the 50% haircut. For the first time under IM rules, cash collateral looks set to play a larger role. Here, firms face cross-border tangles. US rules require cash IM to be reinvested in cash-like instruments such as money market funds. European rules permit only Ucits-eligible money-market funds – yet these are few and far between.
The rules will be put to the test for managed accounts, which see large funds allocate parts of the portfolio across different investment managers. Where these funds rely on the exchange threshold monitoring, a close eye is required to avoid individual managers inadvertently breaching the group threshold.
There’s another big difference this time around. Implementation is taking place against a backdrop of soaring inflation, rising interest rates and heightened geopolitical tension. Market disruption and heightened volatility is bad news for implementation projects. It’s also bad news for firms relying on threshold monitoring, as modest market moves can have an outsize impact on options-heavy exposures.
Those hoping for a further reprieve in the roll-out of the regime will likely be disappointed. While the Covid‑19 pandemic delayed the final two waves by a year, participants say phase six is too far down the road to be postponed again.
“It’s too late in the day,” says the lawyer working with phase six clients. “Never say never, but we’ve already had delays, and I can’t see any chance of this being delayed further.”
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
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates
Bankers call for overhaul of EBA stress tests
Support for multiple scenarios, but only if fixed assumptions and variables are scaled back
CFTC plan to relax MMF margin restriction sparks debate
Industry welcomes proposal to lift ban on repo-using funds as eligible IM, but some warn MMFs bring risks
Legal challenges loom for renewed US focus on Sifis
Lawyers say any FSOC attempt to designate systemic non-banks risks a repeat of MetLife case