Mentioning November 11th!

Risk published an article on the different initiatives related to the term RFR rates: Search for term Libor replacement hits twin barriers (subscription required).

I was interviewed by Risk a month ago on the subject of the term RFR rates and the IBA "ICE term RFR" based on SONIA. I also posted a blog on the subject a month ago: ICE Term Risk Free Rates.

Risk magazine quoted me saying (yes this is me quoting someone quoting me):
“The futures have a fixed start date and end date; say from 1st of month to 1st of next month. What we need for term benchmarks is from today to today plus one month or three months, for example, from November 11 to December 11. How do we extract that information from the futures? We have to get part of the information from the November 1 to December 1 futures and part from December 1 to January 1. How this is done is subjective and depends on information that is not visible in the futures market,” says Marc Henrard, head of quantitative research at vendor OpenGamma in London.

The true quote should have been
"The futures have fixed start date and end date (say from 1st of month to 1st of next month). What we need for term benchmark is from today (or more exactly t+2) to today +1M or 3M. Today 9th October, we want the rate between 11th October and 11th November (adjusted). How do we extract that information from the futures? We have to get part of the information form the 1-Oct to 1-Nov futures and part from 1-Nov to 1-Dec. How this is done is very subjective and depend of plenty of information that is not visible in the futures market."

The difference between the two are the dates. The interview took place a month ago (on 9th October) and they updated the starting month from October to November to match the publication date, but did not adapt the day of the month accordingly. To prevent any sarcastic comment, I need to clarify that I know that Sunday 11 November is not a good business day; no LIBOR deposit has its effective date on that day. Also the discussion was generic about USD, GBP and EUR. I know that the GBP LIBOR standard is T+0 and not T+2.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-curve framework book: new edition in progress

Image
Subject: Interest Rate Modelling in the Multi-curve Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Implementation It has been more than 10 years since I wrote the first edition of the multi-curve framework book. What happened in those 10 years? Why did it take me so long to start a new version? It took me roughly 10 years to write the first edition. The reason it took so long at that time, was that I did not know that I was writing it! I thought I was writing a couple of pages on an obscured and theoretical idea that there was not a `` one curve to rule them all '' but multiple curves. It turned out that it became the actual practice for very clear and important reasons. That was the excuse for the first edition, what is the excuse for the second edition? Since the first edition, many things happen, in particular: March 2015: BCBS - IOSCO: margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives and mandatory variation margin July 2017: The future of LIBOR -- actually it
Read more

Rigged: part 1 - Will there be a part 2?

Image
I have been reading book “Rigged: The Incredible True Story of the Whistleblowers Jailed after Exposing the Rotten Heart of the Financial” (Andy Verity, Flint, June 2023) for some time. It was published several month ago, but I just finished it. To my defence, I have to say that I don’t feel comfortable reading fiction where the “bad guys” are systematically winning by cheating. The book is the story of the miscarriage of justice done in the LIBOR manipulation story. The book content did not surprise me. For anybody having worked on a (swap) trading desk, it is clear that what was described by the accusation was impossible. It is not possible for some middle level trader to create a multi-year, multi-desk, multi-bank international conspiracy over open lines, broker lines, on open offices etc. without all around them, including compliance and senior management to be fully aware of what is going on. Moreover the regulators cannot be ignorant of the situation, except pleading complete in
Read more

Pertes de la BNB: c’était prévu et nous payons!

La BNB: 3 milliards de pertes et encore 6 milliards à venir. Voir par example l’article de l’Echo: La perte de la BNB a dépassé 3 milliards d'euros en 2023 . 1) C’était le but! C’était prévu! 2) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 3) Quatrième pouvoir? 1) C’était le but! Les achats d’obligations gouvernementales avaient pour but de diminuer le coût des emprunts pour les États concernés. Il y a bien sur la fiction que ce n’est pas du financement des états parce que les obligations sont achetées dans le marché secondaire aux banques commerciales. Une fiction car les banques commerciales; achètent ces obligations sur le marché primaire à un prix surévalué uniquement parce qu’elles savent qu’elles peuvent les revendre à un prix encore plus surévalué aux banques centrales. C’est d’une certaine façon un “pump and dump”. Si ce n’est que dans le “pump” le seul pompage est par les banque centrales et le reste sait que ce pump n’intervient que pour soutenir un actif de moindre qualité. Et
Read more