Consultation on IBOR fallbacks: Question 2

Game of Benchmarks: Season 2



Game of Benchmarks: Season 2 - Episode 2: Triggers

 

Question related to: Description of Fallbacks - Triggers

In the triggers description, the benchmark to which a fallback would be applied is called “the relevant IBOR”. The list of those relevant IBOR is “GBP LIBOR”, “CHF LIBOR”, “JPY LIBOR”, etc. The relevant IBOR does therefore not include the tenor.

It is not clear from the text if the trigger applies on a tenor by tenor basis or on a full “family". Could there be a situation where one tenor, e.g. GBP-LIBOR-12M, is discontinued but not the others in the same family, e.g. GBP-LIBOR-3M. Would the discontinuation of one tenor trigger the fallback for all of them?

Could you clarify the tenor/family issue in the FAQ and potentially adapt the trigger wording?

Edit on 18-Aug-2018:

I have received an answer from ISDA regarding the above question:

If the discontinuation is of one tenor only, then it is likely that market participants will follow the interpolation approach that they followed when certain LIBOR tenors were discontinued several years ago.  The fallbacks we are implementing contemplate discontinuation of all tenors (although this is not yet a hard and fast rule because we are still confirming that there are no scenarios in which our fallbacks should apply to a tenor discontinuation - but I think that would be unlikely).

A list of FAQ is maintained by ISDA.

Season 2: The questions

 

Question 1: Question related to Option 3: Compounded Setting in Arrears Rate

Question 2: Question related to: Description of Fallbacks - Triggers

Question 3:  Description of Adjusted RFR - Timing

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