Compression lessons from Japan
Chinese banks remain reluctant to compress, but Japan’s example offers succour
A dealer on a renminbi swaps desk at a European bank in Hong Kong is feeling frustrated. Hitting his counterparty risk limit with his client banks in the mainland – and sometimes inadvertently breaching it – is an all too regular occurrence. The most annoying part? There’s a ready solution within reach – but his client’s just not interested.
Global lenders want their Chinese counterparties to compress the large books of renminbi swaps they’ve built up between them over the past several years in order to crush their notional exposures and free up headroom for new business. So far, they’ve failed to convince all but one lender in the world’s second-largest economy to take part, however – and with local banks not facing the same capital pressures as their global peers, things look set to stay the same for the foreseeable future.
Amid the frustration, global banks looking for succour should cast their minds back a few years to the introduction of compression to the Japanese market.
After a slow start, Japanese banks now make greater use of compression services than any other Asia-Pacific nation, accounting for roughly half of multilateral compression runs across the region, according to one vendor.
Barely a few years ago, the situation was very different. Back then, attempts by US and European banks to cajole their Japanese peers on the other side of swaps trades to compress received very short shrift.
Attitudes gradually began to change, however – thanks in no small part to external lobbying from US and European banks. Slowly but surely, the message got through to the larger Japanese banks that without the benefits of swap compression, they might not be able to trade as much as they would like with their international counterparties.
Similarly, dealers active in the booming renminbi swaps market, fuelled by a surge in onshore eurodollar bond issuance among Chinese corporates, are hoping the threat of exhausted counterparty limits will serve as a spur to local banks to engage in multilateral compression runs, too.
That threat, they hope, along with the onset of new regulation in China, could turn the tables in the next few years. Service providers also point to the looming 2019 and 2020 phases of the global non-cleared margin rules – which will force more than 1,000 counterparties to begin exchanging initial margin on derivatives trades – as likely pushing Chinese banks to act.
The other spur could be a regulatory solution that secures China’s status as a clean-netting jurisdiction, for example, precipitating greater interest in the onshore market on the benefits of portfolio compression, according to a rates trader.
If the eventual embrace of trade compression by Japanese banks shows anything, though, international banks would be well served to keep up the pressure.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Critics say perps are all froth. The numbers suggest otherwise
Healthy open interest in perpetual futures with TradFi underlyings could threaten incumbent exchanges like CME and Eurex
SpaceX gives CME’s single-stock futures a much-needed boost
New contracts could take off as IPO bolt-on to S&P 500 contracts
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
Have regulators gone soft on enforcement? (And should we care?)
US agencies are scaling back punishments for technical rule breaches, raising concerns that small but crucial risks may be ignored
Beyond FX HedgePool: what’s next for all-to-all?
Proponents see bright future for trading model, but obstacles to take-up remain
Basel’s CVA upgrade: persuasive in the US, less so in Europe
Ban on credit risk models could encourage US banks to adopt more sophisticated CVA method
Is alt data betting on prediction markets?
While offering a rich source of new data, legal uncertainties remain
The SaaSpocalypse shows private markets need risk models
Investors have little idea how bad the losses in private credit are going to be