New OTC markets regulation "could damage businesses"
Regulatory attempts to reduce systemic risk within the financial sector should not extend to non-financial sector companies, according to the London-based Association of Corporate Treasurers (ACT).
"We believe non-financial companies using derivatives for hedging are not systemically significant. There should be no need to include OTC deals with the non-regulated sector in any new processes and regulation," commented the ACT.
The ACT raised a number of concerns over the adverse effects planned European Commission regulations on over-the-counter derivatives markets could have on non-financial sector companies. These companies would require extra capital, the ACT said, as the proposed legislation could compel corporate parties to convey collateral to their counterparty daily during the life of the derivative. Currently, when companies hedge their exposure to future cashflows, no cashflows are required prior to maturity. This requirement "to find additional cash to meet a margin call could be the final thing that triggers the collapse of the company," according to the ACT response.
It added that regulatory plans for product standardisation, which would only permit certain fixed amounts, dates or rates to be dealt over these markets, could leave firms open to volatility and commercial risks.
The ACT rejected the EC's calls for more transparency of prices, transactions and positions, arguing that companies in the non-financial sector have less exposure to equity and credit derivatives, and more on interest rates and commodities where, the ACT argued, that pricing is already transparent.
See also: EC calls for greater standardisation of over-the-counter derivatives
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
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs