News
SEC Rule Proposals Risk Unraveling the ETF Industry
Modern financial markets are a finely woven tapestry of market makers, investment products and vehicles, and investors with diverse expectations and risk appetites. Holding the whole thing together is a structure of rules and regulations. Altering this intricate weaving is always fraught with risk, and tugging on one thread may unravel another. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent liquidity and derivatives rule proposals for mutual funds and ETFs may have set the stage for a major unraveling. The combination of these two proposals, if implemented as currently written, may unintentionally create conditions that would drive investors from ETFs toward riskier and less well-regulated exchange traded notes (ETNs).
Sovereign Wealth Funds Could Boost Global Liquidity
Prior to Basel III and Dodd-Frank, broker-dealers were the world’s main supply of high quality liquid assets (HQLA). New regulations have forced broker-dealers to reduce drastically their inventories of these high quality collateral assets at a time when a flight to quality and safety has placed these assets in extremely high demand. This unintended consequence of regulatory reform has restricted supply, driven up the price of HQLA, and reduced global liquidity overall.
ISDA Says it’s Time to Revamp the Derivatives Markets
The fast pace and broad scope of new regulation are driving participants in the complex derivatives markets to adapt quickly. Layers of old infrastructure and practices built up over time need to be overhauled to keep up with new regulation, technological change, and overall structural changes in derivatives markets. In a September 15, 2016 white paper, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) has called for greater standardization and automation of derivatives trade processes in order to improve efficiency, reduce complexity, and lower costs for market participants. According to ISDA’s chief executive Scott O’Malia, “More recently, the sheer pace of regulatory change has meant firms have been under pressure to tackle the next pressing deadline. The result is a derivatives infrastructure that is duplicative and based on incompatible operating standards, and this isn’t sustainable.”
FSOC Wants Better Securities Lending and Repo Data
In its 2016 annual report published in July, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) said that more and better data was needed to assess the potential systemic risks associated with securities lending and repo. The super-regulator called for more transparency and better data collection from both lenders and borrowers in securities lending and repo markets.
Dealer-based Execution on Trial
Is it true that customers always get a better price for their trades when executions take place on a regulated exchange? That seems to be the premise underlying a putative class action suit filed in federal court last November in the Southern District of New York. Next week, on July 19th, the court and litigants will be developing the pretrial schedule, including discovery and deadlines for naming experts, in what may well be a landmark case for competition in financial services.
Rare Win in Court for Wall Street Bank
On October 14, 2016, London’s High Court of Justice handed down a ruling in favor of the UK subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, ending a three-year challenge by the US$60 billion Libyan Investment Authority (LIA). The decision comes after a judge rejected claims by the sovereign wealth fund that the bank’s nine synthetic derivatives, crafted in 2007 and 2008, were intended to be so complex as to exploit its staff’s limited financial know-how.
What to Expect from the Final Cut of Basel III
In an October 12, 2016 address before the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, William Coen, Secretary General of the Basel Committee (BIS) provided some insights into what BIS plans to do to finalize Basel III post-crisis reforms. Notably, Coen indicated that there may be some reexamination of certain aspects of the framework that may have missed their mark initially.
SIFMA’s Full-Throated Defense of Securities Lending
In a 65-page comment letter responding to the Financial Stability Board’s (“FSB”) June 22, 2016 consultation paper, “Proposed Policy Recommendations to Address Structural Vulnerabilities from Asset Management Activities,” SIFMA vigorously championed securities lending, and by extension, the asset management industry. While supportive of the FSB’s recommendations, the lengthy comment letter explains in detail how the concerns expressed in the consultation, particularly with respect to securities lending, are already addressed by market practices, structures, and existing regulation.
GFMA Measures the Costs of Basel Reforms
On August 10, 2016, the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) released a comprehensive analysis of the potential costs of the new Basel standards on lending and capital markets. The report was conducted by Oliver Wyman, a leading global management consulting firm, on behalf of GFMA and represents a comprehensive review of the existing literature on the effects of the Basel III standards on capital markets and banking activities. Given the volume and rapidity of regulatory changes in response to the financial crisis and the complexity of the global financial system, GMFA felt it was necessary to have a better understanding of the costs of reforms, both intentional and unintentional.
Has Crisis Regulation Made Banks Less Safe?
The response to the financial crisis was a raft of new regulation aimed at reducing the risks posed by financial institutions. But now with strict new liquidity and leverage ratios, increased capital requirements, and restrictions on banking activities versus investing activities, are banks safer than they were prior to the crisis? In a paper published for the September 15 and 16, 2016 BPEA conference, Harvard’s Natasha Sarin and Larry Summers try to answer that very question.