Clarus Financial Technology

MIFID II: What Should Transparency Look Like?

This blog follows on from my original blog about MIFID II Transitional Transparency.

4 Weeks of Transparency Delays. 4 WEEKS!

This is why ESMA data matters. I missed this detail in my original read of the RTS2 from ESMA. Local authorities in Europe can delay the publication of trades over certain thresholds by FOUR WEEKS:

Market participants tell us that they expect most “competent authorities” will indeed exercise this option to delay publication by four weeks. This four-week delay was quite a shock to me. The longest publication delay we see in US SDR data is 15 MINUTES.

Rewind

But before I get ahead of myself and lose you without the back story, here is what has happened so far:

The LIS and SSTI thresholds dictate which trades will be made public (both pre- and post-trade). They are therefore very important. Set too low, and the reform efforts in terms of transparency achieved will be to no effect. Set too high, and end users could be front-run or hedging could be severely impaired.

In terms of transparency, remember we are not talking about a delay of 15 minutes like in the US. And not even 24 or 48 hours in the majority of cases. 4 WEEKS!  That is not transparency in the true sense of the word.

We therefore feel that it is important that ESMA use all of the available data when making these determinations. One such obvious source of data is the US SDRs.

EUR Swaps in the US SDR

A significant portion of the EUR swaps market is covered in US SDR data, as shown in SDRView:

EUR Swaps in the SDR

Showing;

15% of the market seems like a pretty good window for transparency purposes. So let’s go ahead and replicate the ESMA calculations, as detailed in RTS2.

The Calculations

To define what is liquid, we need to satisfy the following:

i.e. we need at least 10 trades every single day, amounting to an average daily volume in excess of EUR50m for each maturity bucket.

I haven’t been able to find in the document a detailed methodology on what actually constitutes the “maturity date” for an IRS. Is a 5 year swap starting in five years time meant to go in the 5y or 10y bucket? In light of which, I thought I would just take a rudimentary look at the data, and use only spot starting swaps.

Remember that sport starting swaps make up only around 30% of volumes:

EUR Swap Volumes by Start Date

Even looking at a portion of the market is interesting when compared to the ESMA calculations…

Calibrating LIS and SSTI

To recap, the ESMA data analysis yielded the following EUR IRS as “Liquid” and their corresponding LIS and SSTI levels:

Instruments maturing within a year of the benchmark maturity are deemed as “Liquid” from the ESMA data set.

How does this compare with the SDR data? And more importantly, how do the SSTI and LIS levels compare? Well, even with “only” 15% of the market covered, SDR data has 15 maturities defined as liquid in terms of having >€50m in Average Daily Volume (we can safely assume that they trade over 10 x a day even if the SDR data shows fewer trades).

Our complete grid of data is shown below:

US SDR data therefore shows that for EUR swaps alone:

From the public trade-level data in US SDRs, the following determinations of LIS and SSTI levels for liquid instruments can readily be made:

Showing;

The Good News

Over time, as the ESMA data gets better, the official LIS and SSTI thresholds will converge with those calculated here.

The methodology to calculate these thresholds is available, transparent and can be replicated if you have the data.

This means that market participants can follow the public data and imply what the SSTI and LIS thresholds should be per instrument.

This is a good thing. It is such a shame that the transitional levels, which will be in place until April 2019, are so wide of the mark. Particularly when there is perfectly good data available!

In Summary

Stay informed with our FREE newsletter, subscribe here.

Exit mobile version