Wild Trading is Straining the Plumbing?

You have to hand it to the WSJ – they really know how to make the safety of Trillions of Dollars in derivatives trading across dozens of exchanges look pretty pedestrian. Their hero image of the firm, which cleared 4.3 Billion contracts last year and holds about $130 Billion in margin deposits for clients, is this:

Not much in the way of impressive “machinery beneath trading” there, and the gist of the article sort of follows that theme – implying that recent volatility has stressed the plumbing behind the world’s derivatives markets. Here’s the WSJ, quoting a report by JMP Morgan:

Wild trading is straining the plumbing that powers global markets.

At least 49 times this year, major derivatives contracts globally—including on U.S. Treasurys and the S&P 500—have seen price moves that exceeded margin limits, according to figures compiled by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Now, the knee jerk reaction from those in the biz to an article like this is… please, we’ve been there, done that before. The system is resilient. The system is flexible. The system survived 2008, and 9/11, and 1987, and so on and so forth. As the CEO of CBOE is quoted as saying in the article:

“Central clearing works…I don’t want to lose sight of that.”

But the argument between the lines here is a little more complex, going something like – markets have become way more automated, with way more derivatives traded, and have been purposefully calmed by central bank intervention these past 10 years. Are the current margin breaches signs of cracks in the damn, and/or is the current central clearing system sufficiently modernized to keep pace with the automated computerized algorithmically driven trading world of today?

In speaking with our risk team internally, they noted that there’s really two main issues there: centralization of risk at the clearinghouses, and the inability of the same clearinghouses to foresee the future.  The issue of systematic risk is a real consideration, especially when you consider things like the lack of cross-exchange margin hindering a real view on portfolio levels risk (e.g. holding offsetting positions in related products at ICE and CME such as CL-Brent, or CL-WTI (ICE version).  SPAN is a reasonably good model, but without interexchange views on these things you end up with one side having to be unwound from a margin perspective, which as a result causes the other side to be unwound to keep the market risk at a balance/neutral level. Of course, one thing they didn’t mention in the article is the use of FCM margin multipliers, and the use of FCM’s in general – which are one more level of capital between the margin breach, client, and the reserve funds of the clearing companies. The FCMs act as another lever to protect the system and are implemented by those who deal most directly with the clients. Further, the clearinghouses do have loss plans in place. It isn’t like they’ve never thought of this before. Here is CME Group’s:

https://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/risk-management/financial-safeguards.html

Regarding the second issue here that more volatility means more margin level “breaches”, the recent elevated volatility can be seen as a good thing. It provides new data to feed into margin calculation and likely pushes margins higher going forward. These things are cyclical and reactionary. As markets get more volatile, margins increase. As they increase, trading can fall back and some of the volatility disappears, leading to cuts in the margin, and so on in the circle of (margin) life. To think that any new model will be able to predict when or if these breaches will occur sure seems like a fool’s errand to us. There’s always going to be a risk of underestimating risk when you don’t know the future. The WSJ would seem to paint the margin increases as a source of alarm, but to us, it is more of a normal course of operation.

It’s an example of how flexible the process is.

Disclaimer
The performance data displayed herein is compiled from various sources, including BarclayHedge, and reports directly from the advisors. These performance figures should not be relied on independent of the individual advisor's disclosure document, which has important information regarding the method of calculation used, whether or not the performance includes proprietary results, and other important footnotes on the advisor's track record.

Benchmark index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship, self reporting, and instant history.

Managed futures accounts can subject to substantial charges for management and advisory fees. The numbers within this website include all such fees, but it may be necessary for those accounts that are subject to these charges to make substantial trading profits in the future to avoid depletion or exhaustion of their assets.

Investors interested in investing with a managed futures program (excepting those programs which are offered exclusively to qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7) will be required to receive and sign off on a disclosure document in compliance with certain CFT rules The disclosure documents contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA, as well as the composite performance of accounts under the CTA's management over at least the most recent five years. Investor interested in investing in any of the programs on this website are urged to carefully read these disclosure documents, including, but not limited to the performance information, before investing in any such programs.

Those investors who are qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7 and interested in investing in a program exempt from having to provide a disclosure document and considered by the regulations to be sophisticated enough to understand the risks and be able to interpret the accuracy and completeness of any performance information on their own.

RCM receives a portion of the commodity brokerage commissions you pay in connection with your futures trading and/or a portion of the interest income (if any) earned on an account's assets. The listed manager may also pay RCM a portion of the fees they receive from accounts introduced to them by RCM.

See the full terms of use and risk disclaimer here.