Clearing thresholds: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
So in this new world where derivatives are finally seen as the [[weapons of mass destruction]] that Warren Buffett always said they were, the regulators have announced that, over certain thresholds, parties trading [[over-the-counter]] derivatives must clear them through a [[CCP|central clearing counterparty]], and rhgw [[mark-to-market exposure arising from those types of derivative which cannot be (or are not) centrally cleared must be fully collateralised.  
{{a|emir|}}So in this new world where derivatives are finally seen as the [[weapons of financial mass destruction]] that Warren Buffett always said they were, the regulators have announced that, over certain thresholds, parties trading [[over-the-counter]] derivatives must clear them through a [[CCP|central clearing counterparty]], and [[mark-to-market]] exposure arising from those types of derivative which cannot be (or are not) centrally cleared must be fully [[Collateral|collateralised]].  


Thus the grand excitement, culminating in the first quarter of 2017, of [[variation margin regulation]] (call it [[WGMR]], [[SIMM]], [[UMR]] - whatever the hell you like).
Short points: a non-financial counterparty must measure its gross exposure to derivatives — against any counterparty — by reference to predefined notionals (see below). If it is over these thresholds in total, it must post margin with respect to all of its exposures, to each counterparty, for that asset class. This does not necessarily affect its obligation to post VM for ''other'' asset classes.
 
Thus the grand excitement, culminating in the first quarter of 2017, of [[EMIR|variation margin regulation]] (call it [[WGMR]], [[SIMM]], [[UMR]] - whatever the hell you like). The {{EU}} articulation of it was in {{t|EMIR}} - the grandly titled [[European Market Infrastructure Regulation]].


===[[Financial counterparty - EMIR Provision|Financial counterparties]]===
===[[Financial counterparty - EMIR Provision|Financial counterparties]]===
Er -
Er - if you're one of these you're in. Being one of these is basically a case of not being one of those. ↓


===[[Non-financial counterparty - EMIR Provision|Non-financial counterparties]]===
===[[Non-financial counterparty - EMIR Provision|Non-financial counterparties]]===
Line 11: Line 13:
Depending on the volume of derivatives a counterparty enters into, [[ESMA]] ([[European Securities and Markets Authority]]) has defined a set of clearing thresholds for each class of derivative and [[NFC]]s are classified relative to these thresholds.The calculation is based on gross notional values of positions (excluding cash products and spot [[FX]] that are ‘objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to its commercial activity or treasury financing activity or that of its group (‘hedging derivatives’).
Depending on the volume of derivatives a counterparty enters into, [[ESMA]] ([[European Securities and Markets Authority]]) has defined a set of clearing thresholds for each class of derivative and [[NFC]]s are classified relative to these thresholds.The calculation is based on gross notional values of positions (excluding cash products and spot [[FX]] that are ‘objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to its commercial activity or treasury financing activity or that of its group (‘hedging derivatives’).


{{clearingthresholds}}
The regulatory obligations imposed on NFCs depend upon their NFC sub-categorisation.
*'''[[NFC+]]''': A “non-financial counterparty above the threshold” or NFC+, is one whose rolling average position over 30 working days (excluding hedging derivatives) exceeds the thresholds.
*'''[[NFC-]]''': A [[non-financial counterparty below the threshold]] or NFC-, is one whose rolling average position over 30 working days doesn’t exceed the thresholds in any derivative classes.
 
Query also whether your counterparty might qualify for the hedging exemption in Article 10(3) on the basis that it is fully, objectively, hedged.
 
====[[Clearing thresholds]] by class====
*'''[[Credit derivative|Credit]]''': EUR1billion
*'''[[Equity derivative|Equity]]''': EUR1 billion
*'''[[Interest rate derivative|Interest rates]]''': EUR3 billion
*'''[[FX|Foreign Exchange]]''': EUR3 billion
*'''[[Commodities]] and others''': EUR3 billion
{{sa}}
*[[clearing thresholds]]
*[[Non-financial counterparty]]
*[[NFC-]]
*[[Financial counterparty]]
*[[Hedging exemption]]

Latest revision as of 09:14, 30 August 2022


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

So in this new world where derivatives are finally seen as the weapons of financial mass destruction that Warren Buffett always said they were, the regulators have announced that, over certain thresholds, parties trading over-the-counter derivatives must clear them through a central clearing counterparty, and mark-to-market exposure arising from those types of derivative which cannot be (or are not) centrally cleared must be fully collateralised.

Short points: a non-financial counterparty must measure its gross exposure to derivatives — against any counterparty — by reference to predefined notionals (see below). If it is over these thresholds in total, it must post margin with respect to all of its exposures, to each counterparty, for that asset class. This does not necessarily affect its obligation to post VM for other asset classes.

Thus the grand excitement, culminating in the first quarter of 2017, of variation margin regulation (call it WGMR, SIMM, UMR - whatever the hell you like). The European Union articulation of it was in EMIR - the grandly titled European Market Infrastructure Regulation.

Financial counterparties

Er - if you're one of these you're in. Being one of these is basically a case of not being one of those. ↓

Non-financial counterparties

EMIR identifies two sub-categories of Non-Financial Counterparties (“NFC”).

Depending on the volume of derivatives a counterparty enters into, ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) has defined a set of clearing thresholds for each class of derivative and NFCs are classified relative to these thresholds.The calculation is based on gross notional values of positions (excluding cash products and spot FX that are ‘objectively measurable as reducing risks directly related to its commercial activity or treasury financing activity or that of its group (‘hedging derivatives’).

The regulatory obligations imposed on NFCs depend upon their NFC sub-categorisation.

  • NFC+: A “non-financial counterparty above the threshold” or NFC+, is one whose rolling average position over 30 working days (excluding hedging derivatives) exceeds the thresholds.
  • NFC-: A non-financial counterparty below the threshold or NFC-, is one whose rolling average position over 30 working days doesn’t exceed the thresholds in any derivative classes.

Query also whether your counterparty might qualify for the hedging exemption in Article 10(3) on the basis that it is fully, objectively, hedged.

Clearing thresholds by class

See also

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Clearing_thresholds&oldid=67356"