The silo is dead, all hail pooling!
06 October 2015
Fleming Europe鈥檚 Annual Collateral Management Conference saw a variety of industry figures come together to debate the best way to manage and leverage collateral in an increasingly strict regulatory environment
Image: Shutterstock
Repo is dying, centralisation is the key to optimising collateral management, the shift from cash to equity is all but complete in some trade types鈥攖hese were just some of the claims made during this year鈥檚 Collateral Management Conference.
The conference, now in its ninth year, proved to be the largest one so far, with almost 200 industry figures descending on the iconic city of Amsterdam for the two-day event.
The mandate of the conference was a simple one: to analyse and discuss the various regulatory, economic and operational challenges market participants face when managing collateral effectively.
Collateral held by banks and asset managers can be utilised for a variety of purposes if managed correctly. These include securities lending, liquidity management through repo activity and meeting regulatory requirements, such as the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR), under Basel III.
As more and more of the new regulations reach implementation, the importance of optimising collateral to meet new guidelines will only increase and affect market participants right across the spectrum of industries.
It is therefore unsurprising that the conference was attended by a wide variety of financial industry players, from central counterparties (CCPs) and other service providers to investment banks and technological solution suppliers, with representatives from all over Europe and beyond making the trip.
Decisions, decisions
The conference kicked off with an in-depth look at the many regulatory considerations in an environment of rising volumes of collateral, increasing margin calls and more and more counterparties looking to wedge themselves between the buy and sell sides.
鈥淓urope culturally doesn鈥檛 make it easy on itself鈥�, lamented one panellist during an early discussion on how the US and the EU compared in efficiency when creating new regulation. 鈥淭he regulatory tsunami is coming,鈥� replied another.
The very nature of Europe as a collection of individual markets, of varying levels of development, is the main stumbling block to any new regulation and the reason why Europe鈥檚 answer to the US Dodd-Frank Act is so slow to materialise, according to a third speaker.
Part of the dreaded regulatory tsunami is the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which polled as the regulation causing the most concern for audience members.
And indeed the first 鈥榗ontroversy鈥� of the day came when a panel discussion on the collateral segregation models options under EMIR concluded that the basic omnibus model, where positions and collateral are co-mingled, was by far the most popular choice, only for the audience poll to reveal 70 percent planned on utilising the more extravagant 鈥榝ull segregation鈥� model. The omnibus option only earned 11 percent.
Andrea More of BNY Mellon offered a reasoning to the disparity, stating: 鈥淧eople want full segregation but the actual cost is much more than most people can pay.鈥�
The full segregation model has a 鈥淧orsche effect鈥�, explained More. Market participants initially like the idea of having the best and flashiest model, until the reality of the price tag versus their actual budgets hits home.
The issue of conflict in the most appropriate segregation model resurfaced during a roundtable featuring CME Clearing鈥檚 Dennis Mullany and Eurex Clearing鈥檚 Philip Simons.
鈥淚t鈥檚 very regionally and client specific,鈥� commented Simons while explaining why no clear conclusion could be reached.
Mullany said: 鈥淲e鈥檝e been taking this survey for four years and we still see [the] full segregation model coming to the fore.鈥�
After a fourth year of debate, a poll still showed that roughly half of those in attendance didn鈥檛 have (or weren鈥檛 aware of) their firm having a clear strategy with regard to segregation models, but everyone could agree that managing costs was the primary driver behind all decisions on future investments.
Bridging the gap and making time
The increase of margin call volumes and the impact of new margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives took centre stage in the afternoon. The burden on operations and infrastructure from regulation and building costs was outlined by one speaker.
Cash is still king when it comes to variable margins鈥�, was the clear message of the session, along with the fact that securities lending and repo are legitimate and effective ways of financing collateral in the short to medium term.
Despite all of the progress made in combatting new and increasing costs in managing liquidity and risk, there is still a lot more work to do. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not time to relax, the biggest challenges are still ahead,鈥� concluded David B茅atrix of BNP Paribas 网爆吃瓜 Services.
The advantages of pooling of collateral from all the different trading desks was advocated by multiple speakers throughout the event. It was argued that pooling collateral into one platform allows collateral managers to survey and allocate their collateral inventory much more effectively. It also offers a clearer picture of the total costs and reinvestment options open to them.
鈥淵ou have to move away from the silo approach and start to pool all your collateral together,鈥� explained one speaker. 鈥淯nderstanding your costs better leads to a much better management of inventory.鈥�
This view was echoed by Ted Allen of SunGard in his presentation on why collateral management should be 鈥減artly鈥� viewed as a front-office function.
鈥淐entralisation [of collateral] is key,鈥� he commented. Investing in a central collateral and liquidity management and trading unit, which would include repo/reverse repo and securities lending activity, along with all available collateral, would help 鈥渦nlock the potential of collateral management鈥�.
Other than emphasising the need for a pooled approach, Allen鈥檚 talk focused on collateral transfer pricing and best practice for asset managers and banks.
Collateral transfer pricing (CTP) is the mechanism by which an internal market for assets is created within the institution. It ensures that asset usage to support trading activity through the allocation of capital and collateral is correctly charged, according to a SunGard report.
CTP incentivises asset holders in the firm to provide those assets to a central inventory pool for efficient allocation against collateral and capital requirements. CTP is key in the mechanism to allocate costs of collateral consumption to the underlying trading activity. This ensures correct deal pricing and profitability analysis
But, according to Allen: 鈥淭here is no standardised market approach to collateral transfer pricing.鈥�
The conference, now in its ninth year, proved to be the largest one so far, with almost 200 industry figures descending on the iconic city of Amsterdam for the two-day event.
The mandate of the conference was a simple one: to analyse and discuss the various regulatory, economic and operational challenges market participants face when managing collateral effectively.
Collateral held by banks and asset managers can be utilised for a variety of purposes if managed correctly. These include securities lending, liquidity management through repo activity and meeting regulatory requirements, such as the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR), under Basel III.
As more and more of the new regulations reach implementation, the importance of optimising collateral to meet new guidelines will only increase and affect market participants right across the spectrum of industries.
It is therefore unsurprising that the conference was attended by a wide variety of financial industry players, from central counterparties (CCPs) and other service providers to investment banks and technological solution suppliers, with representatives from all over Europe and beyond making the trip.
Decisions, decisions
The conference kicked off with an in-depth look at the many regulatory considerations in an environment of rising volumes of collateral, increasing margin calls and more and more counterparties looking to wedge themselves between the buy and sell sides.
鈥淓urope culturally doesn鈥檛 make it easy on itself鈥�, lamented one panellist during an early discussion on how the US and the EU compared in efficiency when creating new regulation. 鈥淭he regulatory tsunami is coming,鈥� replied another.
The very nature of Europe as a collection of individual markets, of varying levels of development, is the main stumbling block to any new regulation and the reason why Europe鈥檚 answer to the US Dodd-Frank Act is so slow to materialise, according to a third speaker.
Part of the dreaded regulatory tsunami is the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which polled as the regulation causing the most concern for audience members.
And indeed the first 鈥榗ontroversy鈥� of the day came when a panel discussion on the collateral segregation models options under EMIR concluded that the basic omnibus model, where positions and collateral are co-mingled, was by far the most popular choice, only for the audience poll to reveal 70 percent planned on utilising the more extravagant 鈥榝ull segregation鈥� model. The omnibus option only earned 11 percent.
Andrea More of BNY Mellon offered a reasoning to the disparity, stating: 鈥淧eople want full segregation but the actual cost is much more than most people can pay.鈥�
The full segregation model has a 鈥淧orsche effect鈥�, explained More. Market participants initially like the idea of having the best and flashiest model, until the reality of the price tag versus their actual budgets hits home.
The issue of conflict in the most appropriate segregation model resurfaced during a roundtable featuring CME Clearing鈥檚 Dennis Mullany and Eurex Clearing鈥檚 Philip Simons.
鈥淚t鈥檚 very regionally and client specific,鈥� commented Simons while explaining why no clear conclusion could be reached.
Mullany said: 鈥淲e鈥檝e been taking this survey for four years and we still see [the] full segregation model coming to the fore.鈥�
After a fourth year of debate, a poll still showed that roughly half of those in attendance didn鈥檛 have (or weren鈥檛 aware of) their firm having a clear strategy with regard to segregation models, but everyone could agree that managing costs was the primary driver behind all decisions on future investments.
Bridging the gap and making time
The increase of margin call volumes and the impact of new margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives took centre stage in the afternoon. The burden on operations and infrastructure from regulation and building costs was outlined by one speaker.
Cash is still king when it comes to variable margins鈥�, was the clear message of the session, along with the fact that securities lending and repo are legitimate and effective ways of financing collateral in the short to medium term.
Despite all of the progress made in combatting new and increasing costs in managing liquidity and risk, there is still a lot more work to do. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not time to relax, the biggest challenges are still ahead,鈥� concluded David B茅atrix of BNP Paribas 网爆吃瓜 Services.
The advantages of pooling of collateral from all the different trading desks was advocated by multiple speakers throughout the event. It was argued that pooling collateral into one platform allows collateral managers to survey and allocate their collateral inventory much more effectively. It also offers a clearer picture of the total costs and reinvestment options open to them.
鈥淵ou have to move away from the silo approach and start to pool all your collateral together,鈥� explained one speaker. 鈥淯nderstanding your costs better leads to a much better management of inventory.鈥�
This view was echoed by Ted Allen of SunGard in his presentation on why collateral management should be 鈥減artly鈥� viewed as a front-office function.
鈥淐entralisation [of collateral] is key,鈥� he commented. Investing in a central collateral and liquidity management and trading unit, which would include repo/reverse repo and securities lending activity, along with all available collateral, would help 鈥渦nlock the potential of collateral management鈥�.
Other than emphasising the need for a pooled approach, Allen鈥檚 talk focused on collateral transfer pricing and best practice for asset managers and banks.
Collateral transfer pricing (CTP) is the mechanism by which an internal market for assets is created within the institution. It ensures that asset usage to support trading activity through the allocation of capital and collateral is correctly charged, according to a SunGard report.
CTP incentivises asset holders in the firm to provide those assets to a central inventory pool for efficient allocation against collateral and capital requirements. CTP is key in the mechanism to allocate costs of collateral consumption to the underlying trading activity. This ensures correct deal pricing and profitability analysis
But, according to Allen: 鈥淭here is no standardised market approach to collateral transfer pricing.鈥�
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
