Latest News and Important updates
The latest updates and news regarding the IBOR Reform
30-Nov-2020 – FCA response to IBA’s proposed consultation on intention to cease US$ LIBOR | FCA
ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA), the FCA-regulated and authorised administrator of LIBOR, has today announced that it will consult in early December on its intention to cease US$ LIBOR. IBA intends that, subject to confirmation following its consultation, one week and two month US$ LIBOR settings will cease at end-2021, and that the US$ LIBOR panel will cease at end-June 2023.
To read more, click here…
30-Nov-2020 – ISDA Statement on IBA, UK FCA and Federal Reserve Board Announcements on US Dollar LIBOR Consultation – International Swaps and Derivatives Association
ISDA has published the following statement in response to today’s announcements by ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA), the administrator of LIBOR, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB).
To read more, click here…
30-Nov-2020- ICE Benchmark Administration to Consult on Its Intention to Cease the Publication of One Week and Two Month USD LIBOR Settings at End-December 2021, and the Remaining USD LIBOR Settings at End-June 2023
ICE, a leading operator of global exchanges and clearing houses and provider of mortgage technology, data and listings services, announces that ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (IBA) will consult on its intention to cease the publication of the one week and two month USD LIBOR settings immediately following the LIBOR publication on December 31, 2021, and the remaining USD LIBOR settings immediately following the LIBOR publication on June 30, 2023.
To read more, click here…
18-Nov-2020 – Intercontinental Exchange – ICE Benchmark Administration to Consult On Its Intention to Cease the Publication of GBP, EUR, CHF and JPY LIBOR
ICE, a leading operator of global exchanges and clearing houses and provider of mortgage technology, data and listings services, announces that ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (IBA) will consult on its intention to cease the publication of all GBP, EUR, CHF and JPY LIBOR settings.
To read more, click here…
23-Oct-2020 – ISDA Launches IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and Protocol – International Swaps and Derivatives Association
ISDA has today launched the IBOR Fallbacks Supplement and IBOR Fallbacks Protocol, marking a major step in reducing the systemic impact of a key interbank offered rate (IBOR) becoming unavailable while market participants continue to have exposure to that rate.
Click here to read more.
To view more news and updates about the IBOR Reform
What you need to know
What is LIBOR?
The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is a series of benchmark interest rates at which banks offer to lend funds to one another in the international interbank market. It reflects how much it costs banks to borrow from one another and is used as the reference rate for around $350 trillion in financial products.
Why is LIBOR being replaced?
LIBOR fixings are intended to represent the interest rate charged on short-term (unsecured) loans made between banks. Since the financial crisis, the volume of these transactions has dramatically diminished leading regulators to question their transaction-based definition. Historically, LIBOR has been used as a measure of trust within the financial system as it reflects the confidence banks have in each other’s financial health. However, the recent manipulation scandal has led many to question the validity of these benchmarks and whether it truly serves the intended purpose. Furthermore, strict regulations, brought in since the GFC, have inadvertently reduced the liquidity within the interbank funding market further compounding the lack of transparency of the reported rates.
In the absence of robust transactional data to base LIBOR consensus on, individual submissions have become a subjective and unclear process requiring “expert” judgment by each contributing bank. Consequently, there has been an observable downwards trend in rate submitters willing to sustain the various benchmarks, due to their sensitivities towards perceived litigation risks.
Following the Wheatley review into LIBOR, the FSB and various other industry bodies have been spearheading collaborative initiatives to strengthen or reform the LIBOR processes.
When will the transition take place?
The transition to new RFRs is fluid and led by the market. In 2013, the FCA recommended the replacement of LIBOR with alternative RFRs. Subsequently, the FSB published its report on interest rate benchmark reform in July 2014 and concluded that an RFR is in many cases are more suitable than a LIBOR which is not supported by sufficient transactional data to make it robust. In July 2017, Andrew Bailey announced that the FCA had reached a voluntary agreement between current panel banks to sustain LIBOR in its current form until the end of 2021. As LIBOR will not be banned post-2021, it is possible that it will continue to be published, but in more recent speeches both ISDA and the FCA have been pushing the industry to migrate away from reliance upon the rate.
What is the industry doing to replace LIBOR?
Working groups have been set up, in multiple jurisdictions, to bring together representatives from both the public and private sectors to determine the most appropriate RFRs in the relevant jurisdictions. Four of the working groups, the UK, US, Switzerland and Japan have already identified their preferred RFRs, which are SONIA, SOFR, SARON and TONAR respectively. This represents four of the five currencies for which LIBOR is currently published. For EUR the RFR will be €STR, a new rate that was launched on Oct 2 2019.
ISDA is leading the work on implementing fallback rate documentation. In 2018, ISDA published a consultation seeking the views of participants on a number of possible adjusted RFRs and Spread Adjustments to ensure the least value transfer upon the event of LIBOR ceasing to exist.
Challenges to overcome for a successful transition
Market Adoption of RFRs and Liquidity
It should be a prerequisite that the alternative RFR market is sufficiently liquid prior to adoption as a benchmark reference rate. This can be achieved by dedicating resources and educating all market participants about RFRs. Exchanges and Central Counterparties (CCPs) can also play their part by listing and clearing standardized products that reference alternative RFRs.
Selection of an overnight rate as an RFR would remove any IBOR-OIS basis risks currently seen in collateralized trades. It is unclear whether the collateral remuneration rates will be standardized to the jurisdiction’s chosen RFR.
Inconsistent approaches exist when it comes to fallback rates in the documentation of legacy transactions referencing IBORs. These documents need to be reviewed and segmented accordingly.
Other contractual amendments, which may lead to an increased upfront cost and increased operational risks must be considered when transitioning from IBORs to RFRs. This is will be made more difficult when counterparties have diverging incentives.
Valuation Risk and Management
Mechanisms need to be established to minimize value transfer between entities with respect to legacy transactions.
For less effective hedges, the transition to RFRs may not occur at the same time or on the same terms for both the underlying asset/liability and the corresponding hedge(s).
It is worth noting that IBORs provide market participants certainty because they are fixed in advance, meanwhile RFRs by design can only be determined at the end of the period (i.e., in arrears).
Once definitive RFRs have been chosen and there is a clear jurisdictional transition plan, institutions must perform broad risk assessments to identify whether their infrastructure is adequate to support an RFR environment.
Market participants may have to make significant investments to meet these operational requirements.
Market participants must consider whether alternative RFR transition would result in an acceleration of payments on financial contracts or tax structures.
A switch to alternative RFRs may lead financial instruments and their corresponding hedges to be booked separately in the event that IBOR and RFR are not effectively offset. This may result in net income volatility and growing balance sheets if not managed in proactively.
Institutions utilizing accrual accounting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) may crystallize profit or loss upon RFR conversion. Maintaining hedge accounting relationships would require significant work. Furthermore, an inconsistent adoption of a new RFR could cause an economic mismatch and a broken hedge.
Governance and Controls
Once definitive RFRs have been chosen and there is a clear jurisdictional transition plan, institutions must establish robust governance and controls when transitioning their contracts from IBORs to alternative RFRs.
Existing regulatory requirements may add unnecessary burdens to the alternative RFRs transitions. For example, existing margining rules may be triggered for existing derivative transactions if they are transitioned to an alternative RFR.
Regulators need to explore the possibility of implementing exemptions to the clearing mandate for legacy contracts.
Solum Financial’s second IBOR Reform Whitepaper
Since its first official publication in 1986 the BBA LIBOR fixing and other related IBORs have helped contribute to the exponential growth of the derivatives market. Alongside cash-based products that also reference IBORs, the total outstanding is estimated to run in hundreds of trillions of dollars. IBORs are therefore pervasive in financial markets and their replacement with new regulatory approved reference rates is a monumental undertaking.
In this second whitepaper on the IBOR Reform, Solum Financial aims to provide the reader with a review of the current state of the IBOR transition, highlighting a number of the major obstacles that the market is grappling with and debating some of the potential solutions for a successful transition.