Regulators must scrap T+1 timezone tax
Settlement cycles for non-cleared margin rules must be extended
Settlement cycles for non-cleared margin rules must be extended
One of the more minor irritants of the UK referendum over whether to leave the European Union has been the resurgence in use of the term 'Far East' by members of both sides keen to burnish their globalist credentials. Where north Asia is far from would no doubt be a mystery to the 1.4 billion people who live there.
A pervading sense of mystery was also common to the dealers Risk.net spoke to in Tokyo last week, as they struggled with the conundrum of how to meet the collateral posting requirements of the impending non-cleared margin rules. The European Union may have delayed implementation of its version, but this is a truce rather than a full-scale retreat.
Both US and European rules require collateral to be posted in the day after trading – T+1 – a rule that is no major issue when both counterparties are just a few streets apart in either London or New York. But Japan is 14 hours ahead of the US, meaning its T+1 ends before trading even starts in New York on the same day.
And it is not just Japan. Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore will also face the same problem, as will the emerging Asian economies of China, India and Indonesia when they loosen capital controls and start to trade more globally.
One potential solution is to pre-fund the collateral exchange, a technique that worked well when the Hong Kong Stock Connect opened to resolve the logjam caused by Hong Kong's T+2 cash equity settlement cycle, and the T+0 standard used on the mainland.
Global custodians have said they could provide a similar solution to resolve issues caused by the non-cleared margin rules, but these services won't be free. So not only does T+1 impose a 'timezone tax' on countries that aren't easily able to settle on a US or European trading cycle, it also erects barriers to trading the globe's two most liquid financial markets.
China's capital markets are so nascent that MSCI again this week declined to include A-shares in its emerging market index – with the main bone of contention being issues over investor access to capital. It should be unacceptable to global regulators that Asia-Pacific dealers will need the same pre-funding approach to trade Europe and US as they would to access an economy with capital controls.
Asia-Pacific dealers have already voted with their feet with regard to the US Dodd-Frank regulation and opted to trade with European counterparties instead. If T+1 is imposed on cross-border trades, this trend will accelerate and expand to include Europe's lenders.
Japan's dealers don't want to see a shift to Asian autarky, but the biggest losers in this scenario could well be Europe and the US. According to World Bank data, in 2014, China, Japan and India had the second, third and ninth largest economies in the world – the US and Europe ought to make it easier, not more difficult, to access their markets. T+1 should be consigned to the same wastepaper bin from which UK political commentators have recently rescued the phrase 'Far East'.
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
Banks will not be frowned upon for discount window borrowing – Fed official
Risk Live: more banks have completed paperwork to access Fed lending facility than a year ago
Capital One puts OCC’s tough stance on mergers to the test
Proposed Discover deal should be approved but will go under the microscope, ex-regulators say
As FCMs dwindle, regulators fear systemic risk
Panellists highlight dangers of clearing membership becoming more concentrated
EU banks fear green asset ratios paint an unfair picture
Industry lobbyist clashes with lawmaker over usefulness of new sustainability disclosure
EU watchdogs to launch prop trader capital review in April
Prop traders say bank-style IFR rules are driving them out, but doubt EBA will suggest changes
Investors say new SEC disclosures may sit on shelf
Advisory committee questions value of rule 605 changes, even for retail investors
CFTC hears ‘call to action’ from swaps end-users on Basel III
Commissioner Pham mulls engaging with prudential regulators over capital hit on clearing
Iosco gears up for ‘intensive work’ on AI regulation
Watchdogs risk ‘falling behind the curve’, secretary-general warns; FSB also working on guidance
Most read
- As FCMs dwindle, regulators fear systemic risk
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Top 10 op risks: AI fears drive cyber risk to record high