It is not illegal to be smarter than your counterparties in a swap transaction

"It is not illegal to be smarter than your counterparties in a swap transaction, nor is it improper to understand a financial product better than the people who invented that product."

Richard J. Sullivan
United States Circuit Judge
30 November 2018

This is an interesting statement from the judgement in the United States in the case "CFTC versus Wilson and DRW" (full text available here).

The text of the judgement provide a (surprisingly?) good explanation of derivatives market, including convexity effect on futures. The judgement relates to IDEX 3-month futures. Those futures are not traded anymore since 2011. The text includes consideration about variation margin, basis risk, PAI, convexity adjustments, and futures design.

The background is a badly designed swap futures where some participants notice the bad design and its implications while others didn't. The marketing of the futures claimed that "IDEX IRS futures are designed to be economically equivalent in every material respect to plain vanilla interest rate swap contracts currently traded in the OTC derivatives market" (see marketing flyer here). The "economically equivalent" had to be taken with a poetic license, some market participants (and the clearing house) took it at face value to some extend.

CFTC was suing DRW for biding in this very illiquid market at a price closer to the DRW estimated fair value than the unadjusted OTC swap price. As DRW was the only bidder in this illiquid market, DRW was actually the daily settlement price maker.

My comments are not about the manipulation case but about the futures design. Bad designs of swap futures are dangerous in a market with trillions notional underlying. If you are planning to trade those products, don't take marketing and "every body is doing this" at face value, specially in the flow/linear products interest rate market. Analyze all the facets of the product, including cash flows, settlement mechanisms, regulation, margin (variation and initial), convexity adjustment with respect to other flow instruments, comparison with liquid products, hedging strategies, etc. Innocuously looking effects may have a large value in markets with huge notionals. If you are an exchange planning to launch a contract, get independent opinion or advice from experts, don't be seen as someone who don't understand its own products as well as its clients.

I have proposed a swap futures design that is very close to the OTC market in quotation mechanism and convexity adjustments: see my blog post and detailed technical note.

When you deal with new products and related markets, choose your experts well. Make sure he understands the market your are trading in from inside and all the details of its functioning. Do not choose one of which your shareholders (or a judge in the case described above) could say that his "assertions [are] absurd", as the CFTC did.

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

A personal statement on the IOSCO Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor

IOSCO has issued a document called “Principles for Financial Benchmarks” in 2013. As such it acted as an (unofficial/unelected) lawmaker. On 3 July 2023, the same IOSCO issued a “ Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor ”. The Statement looks like a tribunal judgement from a trial with no public hearing, no witness, and no defense right from a tribunal with no mandate to judge. And publish on the day before Independence Day! Some personal comments on the document. Transparency The statement indicated “Administrators should consider whether to improve the transparency of their rates". The IOSCO document lack minimum transparency. It does not indicate in any way the “varying degrees of vulnerability of concern“ of the analysed benchmarks. The name of the benchmark are not even indicated. This creates a culpability by association to all non-SOFR benchmarks. The statement refers to a Review of Alternatives to USD Libor ; to my knowledge, the review itself is not available. The st
Read more