SFTR: Difference between revisions

1,142 bytes added ,  13 July 2020
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tag|EU}} [[Regulation on Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse]] ({{eureg|2015|2365|EC}}), aka the [[securities financing transaction regulation]] and colloquially {{tag|SFTR}}, is a large and pointless {{tag|EU Regulation}} which causes unassuaged excitement amongst [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] and profound ''ennui'' amongst everyone else.
{{anat|sftr|}}
''See also: [[Boredom heat-death]] of the universe.''  


This is the regulatory initiative that, so say some commentators, nearly caused the [[boredom heat death]] of the universe, when some well meaning industry associations produced a [[Media:SFTR-information-statement.pdf|5,000 word disclosure document]] explaining to seasoned industry professionals (whom you would think would know) what was meant by “[[title transfer]].
The grandly-titled {{tag|EU}} [[Regulation on Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse]] ({{eureg|2015|2365|EC}}) — to its friends the [[securities financing transactions regulation]] and around the kitchen table {{tag|SFTR}}, is a large and pointless {{tag|EU Regulation}} which causes unassuaged excitement among [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] and profound ''[[ennui]]'' among everyone else.
 
{{Art 15 SFTR disclosure document}}
 
===[[Transaction reporting]]===
SFTR requires transaction reporting of [[securities financing]] arrangements. SFTR transaction reporting is different from [[EMIR]] and [[MIFID]] trade and transaction reporting — for one thing, the exact time and price of execution of a [[stock loan]] is less critical data point, seeing as either side can cancel a [[stock loan]] at any time without penalty (before or after settlement), so the time of decision to deal is moot — do you ever really become bound to trade a stock loan? Nor, really, is there a price at which you trade a stock loan, since ([[QED]]) a stock lender just delivers a share to the borrower, but keeps economic exposure to the price risk of the stock, while the borrower only takes economic exposure to a borrowed stock when (and if) the borrower [[Short selling|short sells]] it into the market — which is a different transaction (a [[cash equity]] sale), not connected to the [[stock loan]] — it is none of the lender’s business whether the borrower sells the stock or holds it — and if the borrower does sell the stock, that transaction would be covered by the EMIR transaction reporting regime (where decision to deal, price etc is important).


==={{t|SFTR}} versus {{t|EMIR}}: Regulatory Deathmatch===
==={{t|SFTR}} versus {{t|EMIR}}: Regulatory Deathmatch===
Can you be in scope for {{t|SFTR}} transaction reporting ''and'' in scope for {{t|MiFID}} trade reporting? Some ESMA guidance is a little ambiguous on this point, espectially since, if you wanted to, yhou could dress up a stock loan to look a lot like a derivative:
Can you be in scope for {{t|SFTR}} transaction reporting ''and'' in scope for {{t|MiFID}} trade reporting? Some [[ESMA]] guidance is a little ambiguous on this point, espectially since, if you wanted to, you could dress up a [[stock loan]] to look a lot like a [[derivative]]:


To me the difference between a swap which really is a derivative and is therefore out of scope for SFTR and a swap which is secretly a repo/stock loan and is in scope for SFTR is this:
To [[me]] the difference between a ''real'' swap, which is out of scope for [[SFTR]], and a swap which is secretly a [[repo]]/[[stock loan]] and is ''in'' scope for [[SFTR]] is this:


*'''Under “real derivative” swap transactions''':
*'''Under “real derivative” swap transactions''':
**The [[reference asset]] is struck at a negotiated price – therefore [[best execution]] is important;
**The [[reference asset]] is struck at a negotiated price – therefore [[best execution]] is important;
**There is a specified term, or at least an asymmetry in the parties’ termination rights so at least one party has some option value in the transaciton
**There is a specified term, or at least an asymmetry in the parties’ termination rights so at least one party has some option value in the transaction
**The transaction can swing around in value (reflecting the price of the embedded option) - the transaction in isolation is not intrinsically collateralised: at any time after trade date it will have a mark-to-market value
**The transaction can swing around in value (reflecting the price of the embedded [[option]]) - the transaction in isolation is not intrinsically collateralised: at any time after trade date it will have a mark-to-market value
**Any collateral arrangements take place outside the terms of specific transactions (and will be aggregated to cover net exposures under all transactions under the Master). So, as you know, the {{t|CSA}} under an {{tISDA}} is deemed to be a separate transaction.  
**Any collateral arrangements take place outside the terms of specific transactions (and will be aggregated to cover net exposures under all transactions under the Master). So, as you know, the {{t|CSA}} under an {{t|ISDA}} is deemed to be a separate transaction.  
**Therefore variation margin regulations are relevant to swaps, because the transactions themselves aren’t intrinsically collateralised.
**Therefore variation margin regulations are relevant to swaps, because the transactions themselves aren’t intrinsically collateralised.
*'''“Real SFTR” transactions'''
*'''“Real SFTR” transactions'''
**The asset is physically delivered, rather than executed at a price, with a corresponding physical return obligation, so “best execution” on the asset in question is not relevant;  
**The asset must be real, it must be [[Physical security|physically delivered]], rather than executed at a price, with a corresponding physical return obligation, so “[[best execution]]” on the asset in question is not relevant;  
**There is usually not a specific term, and either party can cancel at any time (therefore there is no option value)
**There is usually not a specific term, and either party can cancel at any time (therefore there is no option value)
**Each transaction has its own collateral leg and is thus intrinsically collateralised: its value is “zeroed” each day  
**Each transaction has its own collateral leg and is thus intrinsically collateralised: its value is “zeroed” each day  
Line 21: Line 27:
**Margin being built in, the variation margin regulations are less relevant.  
**Margin being built in, the variation margin regulations are less relevant.  


The bloody minded amongst you ''could'', no doubt, configure an {{t|ISDA}} transaction to have all the characteristics of a “real SFTR” transaction, but it would take quite a bit of legal engineering and it is hard to see why you would do it (other out of sheer professional pride in your capacity to be bloody-minded, a force of nature one should not take lightly):  
The [[bloody minded]] among you ''could'', no doubt, configure an {{t|ISDA}} transaction to have all the characteristics of a “real SFTR” transaction, but it would take quite a bit of legal engineering and it is hard to see why you would do it (other out of sheer professional pride in your capacity to be [[bloody-minded]], a force of nature one should not take lightly):  
*Initial exchange: Physical delivery of the reference asset against delivery of eligible collateral assets – hence “execution price” is moot
*Initial exchange: Physical delivery of the reference asset against delivery of eligible collateral assets – hence “execution price” is moot
*Daily re-striking of the transaction at zero against a commensurate transfer of eligible collateral assets one way or the other
*Daily re-striking of the transaction at zero against a commensurate transfer of eligible collateral assets one way or the other
Line 30: Line 36:


Does this help?
Does this help?
{{sa}}
*[[MiFID]]
*[[EMIR]]
*[[Boredom heat-death]] of the universe
{{ref}}