Pre-cessation it will be :(

ISDA has announced the preliminary results of the consultation on pre-cessation trigger for LIBOR fallbacks.

The results are:
The initial results indicate a significant majority of respondents are in favor of including both pre-cessation and permanent cessation fallbacks as standard language in the amended 2006 ISDA Definitions for LIBOR and in a single protocol for including the updated definitions in legacy trades.
This goes against my opinion on the question as expressed in a previous blog. This make my cautionary tale about signing the protocol even more valuable. This choice will increase the discrepancy between products, e.g. legacy and new trades. My analysis of that issue was later corroborated by the ARRC.

More than ever, watch out for value transfer!

Note that the consultation was refereeing only to LIBOR (not IBOR in general) and to the FCA (not to regulators in general). We will see if the final wording includes those terms or if (another) workaround is necessary. It seems to be the case as the above-referenced ISDA announcement indicated: "The updated definitions for other covered interbank offered rates (IBORs) will continue to include permanent cessation fallbacks only."

What if IBA transfers its USD-LIBOR IP to a US or a EU entity? Does is means that the pre-cessation part of the definition does not apply anymore to USD-LIBOR? I mention a EU entity beyond the US one, because it would give to EU regulators the power to compel the publication for another 5 years. Same question regarding CHF-LIBOR transferred to a Swiss entity and JPY-LIBOR transferred to a Japanese entity.

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