Morgan Stanley says restructuring will not be required for capital relief
A subcommittee will recommend to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision that capital relief from credit derivative hedging should not require the inclusion of restructuring as a credit event, Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report yesterday.
Some protection sellers, for example, claim that the Chinese walls between a bank’s trading and lending businesses aren’t necessarily airtight. They claim that debt capital markets desks may be inclined to make certain client business decisions - such as forcing a restructuring - on the basis that trading desk colleagues’ would then be able to realise in-the-money positions as default swaps are triggered.
Currently, banks typically defend themselves against such accusations by claiming that they only include restructuring as a credit event because of regulatory capital considerations. “If this change goes through, [protection] sellers will become more vocal about getting restructuring dropped completely,” said a New York-based credit derivatives structurer who spoke with RiskNews on condition of anonymity. “But the fact remains that many banks want it included for economic, rather than regulatory capital reasons,” he added.
A member of the credit derivatives research group at a US bank said that he would be “surprised” if Morgan Stanley’s claim about the Basel subcommittee’s recommendation was accurate. “In general, Basel doesn’t move this quickly. In the US, it’s not even clear if the Fed and the OCC would be on board with this change. It’s unlikely that Basel would want to be out of step with Washington,” he said.
Morgan Stanley’s North American credit research group made its claim regarding restructuring in a special report, published yesterday. The group declined to comment 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.
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 Regulation
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga
Leaked EU plans offer extra temporary relief for FRTB models
Risk factors would need only two observations to be modellable. Do changes foreshadow US Basel III?
Iosco chief talks cyber, AI and clearing
Buenaventura discusses Iosco’s role in aiding market resilience and cross-border co-operation
US regulators bid to save FRTB IMA, but it’s no small task
Even if industry wish-list is granted, a 2028 start date might be too soon for model adoption
Hopes rise for cross-product netting under SA-CCR
Banks want rule change in Basel III endgame to lower capital costs of clearing UST repos
Long way round: EU banks lament credit spread saga
EBA ditches some of banks’ preferred qualitative reasonings – and shortcuts – for CSRBB exclusion