Clarus Financial Technology

How to identify the CCP of trades from the SDR data

Forecasting Swap Prices

When presented with an intraday time-series of data that is derived from SDRs, we see a unique feature for USD swaps. Even with the curated nature of the Clarus data, the price-series is more erratic than we would expect. This isn’t evident if we look on a longer time horizon – even just a few days – but it is noticeable when we interrogate the data intraday. For example, take a look at the month of February (left hand chart below) versus a single day (the 26th) on the right. Click to enlarge the charts.

 

 

 

Showing;

Regular readers will be aware that the answer is (probably) “no”. The reason that the short-term chart on the right exhibits strange behaviour is due to the polluting nature of CCP Basis on price data.

CCP Basis

When a trade is reported to an SDR, it does not contain the name of the Clearing House at which it is cleared. We can make some educated guesses – such as if a Swaption is reported as “Cleared” then it is a fair bet it has been cleared at the CME!

But, a CCP Basis has emerged for vanilla swaps. This means that economically identical trades that are cleared at different clearing houses now have different fixed rates. We have written at length on this subject, so please check out any of our blogs for a refresher.

Price Pollutants

Fortunately, we can extract extra economic information from the price series of data to accurately deduce which trades are cleared at CME.

We are looking to take advantage of the fact that the difference between the price of a CME trade and one cleared elsewhere is large enough, and in-frequent enough, to cause a discontinuity (or “jump”) in the time series.

Whilst dealing with “jumps” is a feature of some financial literature in academia, they typically deal with an adjustment to a Brownian motion type of movement. Or in terms of modelling OIS rates, defining where and when these jumps can occur.

We actually have a somewhat more defined pattern to look for. We are looking for prices that have a jump on each side. We also know, to a certain extent, what the size of jump should be.

Methodology

We don’t want to give too much away on a public blog about exactly how this is achieved. Suffice to say that we use Linear Regression at a given confidence interval (e.g. 95%) to ascertain how large we expect changes in price to be from one trade to the next. We can then examine the price jumps on trades in “packs of three” to identify if a jump is evident.

Results

As opposed to last week’s somewhat underwhelming results, I’m pleased to say that running our identification programme this week yielded excellent results. We don’t have quite the same access to a testable universe of known CME trades as we do with CCP Basis – but we can at least cross check to ensure that both our true positives and false positives from last week are equitably dealt with. Have a look at the time-series below for February 2016:

 

Showing;

Instead, let’s also look at the separate time-series of USSW10 and USSW10-CME (i.e. the same swap but cleared at CME) for the month of February and for the 26th of February:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Showing;

Caveats

Of course, as we noted last week, there are limitations to using prices themselves to discern more information about…prices. So we should caveat that the above methodology does have limitations:

On the plus side, we do have both CCPView and SEFView with which to cross check our results. Which is the great thing about the Clarus data set.

In Summary

Stay informed with our FREE newsletter, subscribe here.

Exit mobile version