The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The leading knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Lack of Single Source of Data on Pricing of Credit Derivatives Poses Problem for Clearing House Plan

Share article

Following the recent discussions about the launch of a possible central clearing house for credit derivatives later this year, a number of related concerns have been raised in the market. Not least of these is the lack of a single, reliable source for reference pricing data.

Although there are a number of derivatives pricing vendors in the market, the dilemma will be which source to choose as the most reliable and thus institutionalise it, forsaking all others. Moreover, due to the OTC nature of these instruments, it is an illiquid and opaque market at the best of times and there is little to no observable transactional pricing, reliability is difficult to determine.

Obviously a number of contenders are currently vying for the clearing house throne – CME Group, Liffe, Eurex Clearing, DTCC and Markit have all announced plans for this market – and the choice of pricing vendor could depend on who wins this first battle.

However, most of these players are likely to choose the largest pricing provider in the current market, Markit, due to various agreements already in place. Earlier this year Liffe, the international derivatives business of Euronext, and Markit expanded their relationship via a partnership agreement. The agreement enabled Liffe to receive a wider range of consensus dividend forecasts from Markit for use in its indicative options pricing model and Bclear, its trade confirmation, administration and clearing service for wholesale equity derivatives that it plans to extend to the credit derivatives market. CME Group is the only real candidate expected to buck this trend due to its ownership of pricing provider and rival to Markit, Credit Market Analysis (CMA). CMA says it is differentiated from other providers, including Markit, because its end of day pricing service is based on buy side pricing data.

CMA has been using this difference as a key reason why its pricing is more reliable. Its argument is that basing pricing on sell side figures can open it up to the risk of mismarks on credit traders’ books and dealer biases.

It also seems that CMA may be stepping into the reference entity identifier space that is currently dominated by Markit’s Reference Entity Database (RED). According to recent reports, CMA is at the planning stages with a project to launch a similar service to Markit RED in response to buy side complaints about the high cost of access to RED.

Related content

WEBINAR

Upcoming Webinar: Entity identification and client lifecycle management – How financial institutions can drive $4 billion in cost savings

Date: 21 January 2021 Time: 10:00am ET / 3:00pm London / 4:00pm CET Duration: 50 minutes A new model in Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) issuance has created significant opportunities for financial institutions to capitalise on their KYC and AML due diligence. By becoming Validation Agents and obtaining LEIs on behalf of their clients, financial institutions...

BLOG

Deadlines and Data Management By-Products of LIBOR Transition

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published a global transition roadmap for LIBOR that sets out a timetable of actions financial firms should take to ensure a smooth transition from LIBOR to other risk-free rates by the end of 2021. The data management task of transition remains a huge challenge for many firms, but it...

EVENT

Data Management Summit USA Virtual

The highly successful Data Management Summit USA Virtual was held in September 2020 and explored how sell side and buy side financial institutions are navigating the global crisis and adapting their data strategies to manage in today’s new normal environment.

GUIDE

Corporate Actions Europe 2010

The European corporate actions market could be the stage of some pretty heavy duty discussions regarding standards going forward, particularly with regards to the adoption of both XBRL tagging and ISO 20022 messaging. The region’s issuer community, for one, is not going to be easy to convince of the benefits of XBRL tags, given the...