Mnuchin makes life harder for quants
Proposed CCAR changes make KVA calculations even more complex
The add-on to a derivatives contract’s fair value to account for the cost of capital, known as the capital valuation adjustment (KVA), is already arguably the most complex of the suite of adjustments out there. But US Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin’s review of bank regulation, released on June 13, looks set to send quants further down the rabbit hole.
The review recommends that the US Federal Reserve Board’s annual stress test – the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) – be amended so that, if a bank fails the qualitative element, it cannot be the ‘sole basis’ for the Fed to object to dividend payments.
The dividend question is already vexing US banks that are trying to work out how much KVA to charge for a trade. In a world without CCAR, a bank can set, for example, a 10% return on equity (ROE) hurdle for a new trade, and if it misses, there’s an implicit assumption it can hand back the capital it didn’t allocate to the trade to shareholders through buybacks or dividends.
Under CCAR though, some banks take into account the likelihood they may fail the test and be unable to hand back that unused capital, trapping it in the bank and earning no return for shareholders. In this situation, a dealer may respond by lowering its ROE hurdles to guarantee it will win more trades, ensuring it can generate at least some returns for shareholders, and lowering the risk of having trapped capital lying around.
“These are all embedded assumptions that could be critical to the KVA calculations. So any change in affecting the assumption would move the numbers, such as the capital release and distribution to shareholders in dividends,” says a derivatives quant at a US bank.
This activity, along with similar reductions in ROE hurdles by some European banks, is said to have contributed to the increased competition for corporate derivatives trades since the beginning of the year.
But, if the US Treasury’s recommendation that a CCAR qualitative fail does not automatically trigger a ban on capital distribution to shareholders is implemented, this calculation gets even more complicated. If a model showed that the bank is headed for a CCAR fail, there is now uncertainty about whether ROE hurdles should be amended, and therefore how much KVA should be priced into a trade.
For some, this could be a step too far. KVA has always been more art than science, so trying to incorporate the probability that the regulator will allow a capital distribution, even if the bank fails its CCAR qualitative test, may be taking perfectionism to the extreme.
In 2016, quants were confident KVA would follow in the footsteps of the funding valuation adjustment and require accounting fair values of derivatives portfolios to be amended. But, given the difference in practice between banks and the ever-evolving nature of the calculation methodology, that may be some time away.
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 Markets
Hedge funds’ pricing often trumps other buy-siders – SNB
Research shows “advantageous” prices result in outperformance of 139bp trading USD/CHF
Softer FX rules for China QFIs set to boost CNY competition
Freedom to circumvent local custodians a plus for pricing and best execution – State Street
Allianz Life drops single-name CDS positions in Q4
Counterparty Radar: US life insurance industry volumes sink to lowest level in two years
Sustainable bond markets miss an options trick
A derivatives mindset could boost lagging sustainability-linked market, argues climate think-tank
FX dealers face end-of-day trading stress from T+1 shift
Experts say switch to using overnight swaps could be “problematic” and lead to wider spreads
Consortium backs BGC’s effort to challenge CME
Banks and market-makers – including BofA, Citi, Goldman, Jump and Tower – will have a 26% stake in FMX
Natixis turns on the taps in flow trading
French bank boosts flow business, balancing structured solutions capabilities
Rethinking P&L attribution for options
A buy-side perspective on how to decompose the P&L of index options is presented
Most read
- Industry urges focus on initial margin instead of intraday VM
- For a growing number of banks, synthetics are the real deal
- Did Fed’s stress capital buffer blunt CCAR?