AFME: CSDR鈥檚 SDR mandatory buy-ins present 鈥榮ignificant risk鈥� to Europe鈥檚 COVID recovery
12 February 2021 UK
Image: MIND_AND_I/adobe.stock.com
The introduction of the Central 网爆吃瓜 Depositories Regulation (CSDR) mandatory buy-in element of the settlement discipline regime (SDR) presents a 鈥渟ignificant risk to Europe鈥檚 recovery from the COVID-19 crisis and will likely disproportionately impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and less liquid securities鈥�, according to AFME.
The comments were made in a position paper by the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) highlighting the risk of mandatory buy-ins to Europe鈥檚 economic recovery from the pandemic and calling for the measure to be removed from the upcoming CSDR.
AFME explains that although it supports the SDR measures, it is against a mandatory buy-in requirement.
Rules requiring central securities depositories (CSDs) to facilitate partial settlement and 鈥榟old and release鈥�, new requirements for trade confirmation and allocation, and a penalty mechanism applied to failed trades, will all contribute towards improving market settlement efficiency, AFME says.
However, it argues that mandatory buy-ins for non-centrally cleared transactions will lead to higher issuance costs and reduced access of issuers to primary markets, and to increased costs, reduced liquidity and reduced investment returns for investors.
鈥淭he periods of high volatility and low liquidity observed during COVID-19 crisis would have been further exacerbated by the existence of a mandatory buy-in regime,鈥� the association explains.
AFME describes the mandatory buy-in regime as a 鈥渄isproportionate measure to address settlement fails鈥�.
The association says: 鈥淭he purpose of the mandatory buy-in is to ensure remediation of the small percentage of trades that continue to fail for multiple business days. The impact of the mandatory buy-in regime will be wider spreads and less liquidity, meaning more expensive and less efficient capital markets for Europe鈥檚 issuers and investors.鈥�
It highlights that the negative effect is 鈥渃learly disproportionate to the problem the mandatory buy-in is trying to fix鈥�, especially during Europe鈥檚 economic recovery from the ongoing pandemic.
Instead, AFME suggests the buy-in should be a discretionary right of the receiving party, not a mandatory obligation.
鈥淭his provides sufficient protection to the buyer without enforcing an action that may be against its economic or commercial interests. A discretionary buy-in regime will mean the buy-in is only used in cases where it is necessary and effective and will avoid significantly damaging market liquidity,鈥� it explains.
In the European Commission鈥檚 CSDR review consultation, which closed on 2 February, AFME proposed a number of amendments to the legislative.
Some of AFME鈥檚 recommended changes included adjusting mandatory obligation to buy-in to a discretionary right for transactions that do not involve a central counterparty clearing house (CCP); to refine and clarify the scope of the buy-in regime; remove the regulatory requirement to appoint a buy-in agent; and the inclusion of new Level 1 provisions to explicitly allow for a functioning pass-on mechanism.
It also suggested redrafting Level 1 to mandate symmetric payments of price differences in order to restore parties to the same economic position and amending Article 25 of Level 2 to clarify that a CSD participant is not required to amend its contracts to ensure the enforceability of settlement discipline on its clients.
AFME also asked for the removal of the requirement of Article 25 to fully contractually incorporate the provisions of the CSDR buy-in regime and to replace it with a requirement for CCPs, clearing members, trading venue members and trading parties to establish contractual arrangements that incorporate an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of settlement failures.
鈥淚t is important that the SDR is workable in practice and effective in achieving its goals at the moment it goes live,鈥� AFME notes.
In the position paper, AFME also outlines the need for 鈥渦rgent clarification鈥� on the implementation timeline of a reviewed SDR.
It explains that significant amendments to the legislation are necessary, but the current implementation date of February 2022 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 allow sufficient time for these changes to be passed into law and incorporated into industry participants鈥� development projects鈥�.
AFME says it supports a phased approach, with penalties and other measures introduced in February 2022 and revised buy-in rules deferred to a later date.
Also calling for the mandatory buy-in element of SDR to be scrapped, is the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA).
In its response to the commission鈥檚 consultation, ICMA said that mandating buy-ins will have adverse impacts on European bond market efficiency and liquidity, noting that a significant body of evidence suggests it will ultimately lead to increased costs for market participants and particularly end investors.
The consultation was scheduled as part of the usual bedding in of EU regulation but scope being reviewed was expanded to include the SDR following claims by ICMA and others that the existence of mandatory buy-ins during the market volatility seen in March and April last year would have compounded the troubles.
The comments were made in a position paper by the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) highlighting the risk of mandatory buy-ins to Europe鈥檚 economic recovery from the pandemic and calling for the measure to be removed from the upcoming CSDR.
AFME explains that although it supports the SDR measures, it is against a mandatory buy-in requirement.
Rules requiring central securities depositories (CSDs) to facilitate partial settlement and 鈥榟old and release鈥�, new requirements for trade confirmation and allocation, and a penalty mechanism applied to failed trades, will all contribute towards improving market settlement efficiency, AFME says.
However, it argues that mandatory buy-ins for non-centrally cleared transactions will lead to higher issuance costs and reduced access of issuers to primary markets, and to increased costs, reduced liquidity and reduced investment returns for investors.
鈥淭he periods of high volatility and low liquidity observed during COVID-19 crisis would have been further exacerbated by the existence of a mandatory buy-in regime,鈥� the association explains.
AFME describes the mandatory buy-in regime as a 鈥渄isproportionate measure to address settlement fails鈥�.
The association says: 鈥淭he purpose of the mandatory buy-in is to ensure remediation of the small percentage of trades that continue to fail for multiple business days. The impact of the mandatory buy-in regime will be wider spreads and less liquidity, meaning more expensive and less efficient capital markets for Europe鈥檚 issuers and investors.鈥�
It highlights that the negative effect is 鈥渃learly disproportionate to the problem the mandatory buy-in is trying to fix鈥�, especially during Europe鈥檚 economic recovery from the ongoing pandemic.
Instead, AFME suggests the buy-in should be a discretionary right of the receiving party, not a mandatory obligation.
鈥淭his provides sufficient protection to the buyer without enforcing an action that may be against its economic or commercial interests. A discretionary buy-in regime will mean the buy-in is only used in cases where it is necessary and effective and will avoid significantly damaging market liquidity,鈥� it explains.
In the European Commission鈥檚 CSDR review consultation, which closed on 2 February, AFME proposed a number of amendments to the legislative.
Some of AFME鈥檚 recommended changes included adjusting mandatory obligation to buy-in to a discretionary right for transactions that do not involve a central counterparty clearing house (CCP); to refine and clarify the scope of the buy-in regime; remove the regulatory requirement to appoint a buy-in agent; and the inclusion of new Level 1 provisions to explicitly allow for a functioning pass-on mechanism.
It also suggested redrafting Level 1 to mandate symmetric payments of price differences in order to restore parties to the same economic position and amending Article 25 of Level 2 to clarify that a CSD participant is not required to amend its contracts to ensure the enforceability of settlement discipline on its clients.
AFME also asked for the removal of the requirement of Article 25 to fully contractually incorporate the provisions of the CSDR buy-in regime and to replace it with a requirement for CCPs, clearing members, trading venue members and trading parties to establish contractual arrangements that incorporate an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of settlement failures.
鈥淚t is important that the SDR is workable in practice and effective in achieving its goals at the moment it goes live,鈥� AFME notes.
In the position paper, AFME also outlines the need for 鈥渦rgent clarification鈥� on the implementation timeline of a reviewed SDR.
It explains that significant amendments to the legislation are necessary, but the current implementation date of February 2022 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 allow sufficient time for these changes to be passed into law and incorporated into industry participants鈥� development projects鈥�.
AFME says it supports a phased approach, with penalties and other measures introduced in February 2022 and revised buy-in rules deferred to a later date.
Also calling for the mandatory buy-in element of SDR to be scrapped, is the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA).
In its response to the commission鈥檚 consultation, ICMA said that mandating buy-ins will have adverse impacts on European bond market efficiency and liquidity, noting that a significant body of evidence suggests it will ultimately lead to increased costs for market participants and particularly end investors.
The consultation was scheduled as part of the usual bedding in of EU regulation but scope being reviewed was expanded to include the SDR following claims by ICMA and others that the existence of mandatory buy-ins during the market volatility seen in March and April last year would have compounded the troubles.
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to 网爆吃瓜 Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to 网爆吃瓜 Finance Times
