Counterparties: Unintended collateral
Welcome to theÂ CounterpartiesÂ email. The sign-up page isÂ here, itâ€™s just a matter of checking a box if youâ€™re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints toÂ Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com
Financial reform was always going to be accompanied by unintended consequences. And Bloomberg’s Bradley Keoun has found a great one, in his piece on the rise of “collateral transformation” at big banks.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, most derivatives deals — the things which sunk AIG, remember — are meant to be forced into public clearinghouses. The idea is to bring the opaque, hard-to-price derivatives onto an open forum, with each party setting aside safe collateral in case things go sour.
The problem is, good collateral, like those once-pristine sovereign bondsÂ FT AlphavilleÂ has extensivelyÂ cataloged, is in short supply. EnterÂ banks like JPMorgan, BofA, Goldman Sachs and Barclays. Never ones to let an unintended consequence go unmonetized, they’re now offering clients services that take these assets and magically transmogrify them into safer ones:
The process allows investors who donâ€™t have assets that meet a clearinghouseâ€™s standards to pledge corporate bonds or non-government-backed mortgage-backed securities to a bank in exchange for a loan of Treasuries. The investor then posts the Treasuries — the transformed collateral — to the clearinghouse. The bank earns fees plus interest, and the investor is obliged at some point to return the Treasuries. In effect, the collateral is being rented.
This is pretty much the opposite of what was intended. Loaned collateral only serves to increase complexity of the derivatives market, and will likely make it harder to unwind contracts when things go bad. “The point of the initiatives on derivatives was that derivatives can hide a lot of risk,” finance and economics professor at Stanford told Bloomberg. “Now theyâ€™re going to just shuffle the risk around”.
A better regulatory approach, for peopleÂ Harvard’sÂ Kenneth Rogoff; John Kay; theÂ Bank of England’sÂ Mervyn KingÂ andÂ Andy Haldane; and our ownÂ Felix Salmon,Â is that less is more. In a buzzy speech at Jackson Hole late last month, Haldane made the case for aÂ financialÂ regulatory regimeÂ ”which is less rules-focussed, more judgement-based”. As Haldane put it, “As you do not fight fire with fire, you do not fight complexityÂ with complexity”:
Dodd-Frank rulemaking in the 12 months after its enactment covered thirty Â new rules or less than 10% of the total. Â A survey of the Federal Register showed that complying with these new rules would require an estimated 2,260,631 labour hours every year,equivalent to over 1,000 full-time jobs. Scaling this up, the compliance costs of Dodd-Frank will run to tens of thousands of full-time positions.
In this world, rather than adding things like layers ofÂ executive branch oversight, banks would be rewarded for simplicity. — Ryan McCarthy
On to today’s links: