CSFB gets OK for derivatives in China
The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) authorised Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) to launch a financial derivatives business in China last week, reports RiskNews’ sister publication, FX Week .
The derivatives framework enables banks to trade derivatives on their own accounts for profit – previously they were only allowed to use them to hedge. Banks may also now target corporate customers. Previously, they could only offer them to other banks.
As the renminbi is not convertible on the capital account, banks that receive approval are limited to foreign currency-denominated derivatives products. They must also comply with existing regulations from other financial regulatory bodies such as the China Securities Regulatory Commission.
A spokesperson for CSFB declined to comment on what products the bank will sell, saying it has submitted a proposal to the CBRC. "We now get in-principle approval from the CBRC to engage in derivatives but we have to re-submit the plan for the product we intend to sell to Chinese clients, to the CBRC," said the spokesperson.
Under the rules, the bank can engage in interest rates, foreign exchange and credit derivatives products.
Paul Calello, chairman and chief executive officer for the Asia-Pacific at CSFB, said he envisaged demand for such products among government agencies, large domestic institutions, foreign and domestic corporates, and institutional investors.
CSFB will conduct its derivatives business in China through its Shanghai bank branch. The bank received approval from the People's Bank of China to engage in renminbi business in 1998.
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 Risk management
Banks hold 73% of liquidity buffer in cash and level 1 assets, on average
Largest lenders hold highest share of central bank reserves in buffer, latest analysis shows
EBA supports global op risk taxonomy, but it won’t happen soon
New EU framework designed to ease adoption by banks; other jurisdictions have different priorities
Allocating financing costs: centralised vs decentralised treasury
Centralisation can boost efficiency when coupled with an effective pricing and attribution framework
EVE and NII dominate IRRBB limit-setting
ALM Benchmarking study finds majority of banks relying on hard risk limits, and a minority supplementing with early-warning indicators
Banks split over AI risk management
Model teams hold the reins, but some argue AI is an enterprise risk
Collateral velocity is disappearing behind a digital curtain
Dealers may welcome digital-era rewiring to free up collateral movement, but tokenisation will obscure metrics
New EBA taxonomy could help integrate emerging op risks
Extra loss flags will allow banks to track transversal risks like geopolitics and AI, say experts
Third of banks run ALM with five or fewer staff
Across 46 firms, asset-liability management is usually housed in treasury, but formal remits and staffing allocations differ sharply