CCPs and banks at odds over custodian losses

Market participants do not see eye-to-eye on loss sharing in the event of custody bank failure

Stag standoff

Clearing banks and central counterparties each think the other should be on the hook to cover losses stemming from the failure of a custodian or settlement bank that processes and safeguards collateral on the CCP’s behalf.

The collapse of a custodian could have catastrophic consequences for a clearing house and its users, stymieing the CCP’s ability to protect and monetise assets, as well as engaging in basic functions such as taking in and paying out variation margin payments. However, market

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 or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to View our subscription options


Want to know what’s included in our free membership? Click here

This address will be used to create your account

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here