Basis trades: a test case for regulating risky activities
FSOC is right to focus on dangerous behaviour, but Treasury meltdown reveals a complex chain of actors
At the end of last year, the Financial Stability Oversight Council voted unanimously to change the way it does its job. That job – for anyone who needs reminding – is to spot and neutralise threats to the US financial system.
Rather than looking for firms that could endanger the system, the FSOC decided to root out risky activity instead.
It was the right decision. But this year’s meltdown in the US Treasury market is a difficult test case.
Reviewing that episode, some observers – including Bank of England deputy governor Jon Cunliffe and former US Federal Reserve chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen – have pointed to the unwinding of cash/futures basis trades by highly leveraged hedge funds as the source of the problem.
The funds were trying to make money from a structural difference between US Treasury futures and the underlying bonds – futures are typically richer than the cash instrument, so funds capture this spread by selling the futures and buying US Treasuries with repo funding. The prices converge as the futures reach maturity, allowing the funds to cash out and pocket the difference.
It became a hugely popular trade. Data from the US Securities and Exchange Commission shows the gross sovereign debt exposures of relative value fixed income hedge funds climbed by 45% during 2018 and 2019, from $496 billion to $717 billion.
Rather than looking for firms that could endanger the system, the FSOC decided to root out risky activity instead. But this year’s meltdown in the US Treasury market is a difficult test case
What the data does not show is that these funds were hedging their US Treasury futures positions with less liquid off-the-run bonds purchased with overnight funding. The resulting liquidity and maturity mismatches may have exacerbated the violent selloff in March. If regulators had more detailed information on hedge fund exposures and funding terms, they might be able to address these risks before they become a problem.
Like many financial market activities, though, this one does not begin and end with the hedge funds. It is enabled by other participants, each with their own distinct set of incentives.
Clearing houses have been criticised for lowering margin levels when markets are stable, only to hike them at the first sign of trouble. At CME, maintenance margin for 10-year US Treasury futures contracts jumped 50% between March 3 and March 12. Some have also argued the design of CME’s futures contracts makes it economically attractive to hedge them with less-liquid off-the-run bonds.
Regulators may also want to examine the role of prime brokers. The cross-margining models of prime brokers, which offset the long bond and short futures positions in a basis trade, can allow hedge funds to take more leverage than would be permitted by clearing houses. According to Andrew Hauser, executive director for markets at the Bank of England, leverage rates of 40–60 times “were common” among hedge funds involved in the basis trade in March.
The cash/futures basis trade has all the hallmarks of a systemically risky activity. To contain it, regulators must look not only at the role of hedge funds, but also the leverage afforded to them by prime brokers and the margin practices of central counterparties. That will take close co-ordination between the US regulatory agencies.
In short, the basis trade that blew up the Treasury market demonstrates the wisdom of the FSOC’s new approach to dealing with systemic threats. It also illustrates how difficult it will be to apply.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Counterparty risk model links defaults to portfolio values
Fed’s Michael Pykhtin proposes using copula models to capture effects of margin calls on default risk
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk
Is JSCC-CFTC stalemate about to be broken?
Japan CCP gains allies in battle to clear yen swaps for US clients, but CFTC shakeup could dash hopes
What T+1 risk? Dealers shake off FX concerns
Predictions of increased settlement risk and later-in-the-day trading have yet to materialise
Go your own way: departures pose new challenges for CFTC
Loss of Democratic majority would impede chairman’s ambitions for regulatory agenda
Altice’s dropdown is a warning for European creditors
Carve-out used to shield assets from lenders may occur in a fifth of European deals
Are market-makers better at dealing with central bank intervention?
Lack of pain following BoJ intervention suggests dealers are better at handling event risk
Hedge funds must race the clock to check their dealer-rule status
Working out whether a firm is caught by SEC registration requirement could take months