Our privacy policy describes how Fidessa uses cookies on our website. If you continue using our website, you are consenting to our use of cookies. OK

Clear and present danger?

There has been a lot of talk about how the LSE/DB1 merger might create a “too big to fail” clearing house. This seems to be missing the point somewhat as both LCH and Eurex Clearing are already too big to fail. Imagine the fallout if either of these were to go through some sort of disorderly meltdown – would the UK or German governments really just sit back and watch? The real point is that as a “buyer or seller of last resort” clearing houses are, by definition, too big or important to be allowed to fail. In fact, the sole reason for their existence is to provide confidence to the financial system just like the UK’s ATOL does by underwriting travel firms in the time between us paying for our holidays and actually going on them.

Aha! I hear you say – but surely spreading the risk across more clearing venues is safer? Well not necessarily, as each clearing house operates its own risk management systems and most are on a one-way course to offer greater capital efficiency through margin offsets. This might make things complicated if positions across multiple clearing houses needed to be unwound in a hurry. And, however you look at it, less margin underpinning the same level of global risk will not make us any safer. This point, incidentally, being one of the great ironies of Basel III and other constraints on banks’ capital.

If things really did go pear-shaped, then the clearing houses would have to be kept upright however many or few of them existed. This only serves to highlight the reality that the only way to avoid transactional risk altogether is to make those transactions instantaneous. It’s no wonder, then, that there’s so much chatter around distributed ledger technology (AKA blockchain). But, imagining a solution and practically implementing it everywhere, for every asset class, are two completely different things.

So, in the meantime, I guess we either just keep our hard-earned cash stuffed in a sock under the bed or accept that risk is intrinsic in any financial transaction.

Comments
One Response to “Clear and present danger?”
  1. David Morgan says:

    The sobering facts, well put. And indeed there’s an ‘imagined solution’ for equity markets, in terms of instantaneous transactions. But for derivatives, which are the bigger issue, I don’t think we have even that – the clearing risk period for a multi-year swap can’t be made shorter.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2017 Fidessa group plc. All rights reserved.

The information contained within this website is provided for informational purposes only. Fidessa will use reasonable care to ensure that information is accurate at the time it is made available, and for the duration that it remains on the site. The information may be changed by Fidessa at any time without notice. We also reserve the right to close the website at any time. No representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is given on behalf of Fidessa or any of its respective directors, employees, agents, or advisers as to the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained herein or its suitability for any purpose and, save in the case of fraud, all liability for direct, indirect, special, consequential or other loss or damages of whatever kind that may arise from use of the website is hereby excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any decisions you make based on the information in this website are your sole responsibility and information on the website should not be relied upon in connection with any investment decision.

The copyright of this website belongs to Fidessa. All other intellectual property rights are reserved.

Fragulator® is a registered trademark of Fidessa group plc.

Reproduction or redistribution of this information is prohibited except with written permission from Fidessa.