
EU’s new securitisation market stumbles at the starting gate
Lack of single supervisory authority is hampering EU efforts to create new markets
Back in 2014, Jonathan Hill, the incoming European commissioner for financial services, was given the formidable task of unifying the continent’s capital markets. Two years later, his home country – which could have served as the hub for the EU’s capital markets union – voted to leave the organisation and Hill was out of a job.
But the idea itself is finally coming to fruition. New rules aimed at creating an EU-wide market for simple, transparent and standardised (STS) securitisations came into force earlier this year. And in a wild dash to the finish line before dissolving for elections in April, the European parliament approved a harmonised framework for covered bonds.
Not everything is going according to plan, however. In reality, the STS framework is proving to be anything but simple, transparent or standardised. Issuers cannot figure out which assets they are allowed to include in STS deals or what they need to report to investors, or even which supervisor will oversee the entire process.
As a result, asset-backed securities issuance has fallen in the first quarter of 2019. Regulators are hoping it is a temporary setback, a side-effect of introducing the rules before all of the accompanying technical standards had been adopted.
But the development of a genuinely unified market for STS faces a more structural problem: national banking and securities regulators are ultimately responsible for applying the rules, which raises the prospect of differing supervisory views on what constitutes a genuine STS deal.
The awkward question is whether, left to their own devices, market participants might have achieved a more harmonised landscape without regulatory intervention.
In the absence of a single supervisory authority to police European markets, there are no guarantees that the EU’s STS securitisation or covered bond markets will work as advertised
Under its own steam, the industry established the Prime Collateralised Securities initiative in 2012, with the aim of generating a Europe-wide benchmark for high-quality securitisations. Arguably, banks and insurers would still have needed regulators to ease capital requirements to stimulate the market for these securitisations.
The EU’s covered bonds legislation may fare better. While national supervisors are tasked with applying the rules, market participants expect greater consistency because cover pools are governed by national legal frameworks to make them bankruptcy remote. Some jurisdictions may need to alter their legislation to move in line with the new EU-wide regulation, limiting any potential divergence. Still, as with STS, the industry was already working on harmonisation initiatives, such as the covered bond label and the European covered bond council.
In the absence of a single supervisory authority to police European markets, there are no guarantees that the EU’s STS securitisation or covered bond markets will work as advertised, or achieve more than the industry could have done on its own. It will be some time before we see if EU regulators can create new markets, or if they should even try.
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 Our take
FX-style crypto platforms could bridge gap with TradFi
Emergence of execution-only ECNs, prime brokers and clearing houses brings new confidence in crypto
Skew this: taking the computational burden off basket options
Dan Pirjol presents a snap formula for estimating implied volatility skew in an instant
Shhh, don’t tell: the struggle to keep skew under wraps
Liquidity recycling by clients has made it more difficult for banks to keep skews quiet
How a machine learning model closed a hidden FX arbitrage gap
MUFG Securities quant uses variational inference to control the mid volatility of options
The AOCI elephant in the DFAST room
After March’s banking crisis, Fed stress tests should adopt harsher and wider ranging rate scenarios
China needs an RMB liquidity absorber – HK might be the answer
Increasing HKMA’s CNH debt issuance could help cement renminbi’s role in financial markets
Into the quantiverse: real-world pricing goes arbitrage-free
QRM quants claim to have bridged divide across ‘multiverse’ of fixed-income models
A three-point turn in derivative design
Citibank quant’s triangle method allows information geometry to be applied to hedge structuring