Clarus Financial Technology

SBSDR Part 2: What will SBSDR Cost?

A couple months ago, I published an article “SBSDR:  The SEC Version of SDR” detailing the generalities of SBSDR – the new trade repositories intended to capture securities based swaps such as single name CDS and equity swaps.  At the time, there had been no applications by potential candidates.  Fast forward to today, and it appears as though ICE Trade Vault has thrown their hat into the ring to process single name Credit Derivatives.  You can see their completed FORM SDR and all of the related exhibits on the SEC page here.

Brief Timeline

The Official Seal of the SEC

Before you get too excited, lets try to understand what this means for when we might first see our first single name CDS come out of an SBSDR.  Trying to piece together a timeline is not as easy as it might seem but here is my attempt:

I am aware others have quoted a faster timeline, but I am sticking with this one.

Interesting Tidbits

I’ve now read all of SBSDR legislation §240.13-n and §242.900 – §242.908, as well as ICE’s submission and their appendices.  I have to say, they seem to have their heads on straight, and I trust them to get this right.  I am particularly excited about the flags that they have included in their 901(c) Primary Trade information; however I will leave my thoughts on that to another blog on another day (SBSDR Part 3!), as I intend to formally respond to the SEC request for comment, and do not want to front-run the government here.

If you read through the entire ICE application and exhibits, I would broadly classify their filing documents as follows:

Fees

I’d often wondered what sort of revenue an SDR can garner, and frankly whether Clarus should start our own SDR.  I was also curious to know what kind of “tax” this whole SBSDR would mean to the market.  So I was drawn to the fee schedule.  Here is the ICE Trade Vault SBSDR fees:

This fee structure is nice and clean, and mimics the ICE Trade Vault fee schedule for their CFTC CDS Index offering which is $1.13 per million for single name and $0.45 per million for Index trades.  (Remind me – why was there ever single name CDS in CFTC SDR?).

As a comparison, the DTCC SDR fee structure for all 5 CFTC asset classes is a monthly position-based maintenance fee.  You get 1,000 positions free every month, but that 30 year IR swap will count as a position for the next 360 months, so if it is above your 1,000 free cap, it will cost you anywhere from 40 cents to $3.50 every month, or $144 to $1,260 over the life of the trade.

Bloomberg’s CFTC SDR charges $10 per trade.  Very Bernie Sanders-like – “10 bucks a trade”.  And the maximum monthly charge is $50,000.

CME’s CFTC SDR fee schedule is also trade based.  Participants get 25 free IR, Credit and Commodities reports every month and 1,000 free FX reports per month.  Each IR, Credit and Commodity trade above that is $5 and each FX trade is $1.50 (Bernie Sanders might say “Buck Fiddy”).  There is a $200 minimum fee per month, and a $250,000 cap per year.

Ongoing Cost to the Industry /  (Is being An SDR Lucrative?)

So I thought it worthwhile to see what sort of revenues ICE could expect from an SBSDR venture.

To start with, you need to know the size of the single name CDS market.  Without having access to private data, that’s difficult to quantify.  In fact, that is one of the arguments for having a swap data repository!  It just means that we’re forced to do some back of the napkin math to see how many CDS trades we can expect to see in an SDR:

So, if you followed my back-of the napkin math – and I admit its a pretty filthy napkin by now – I feel somewhat comfortable to say:

Wouldn’t it be so much simpler if we just had actual trades we could look at!?  SBSDR couldn’t come too soon.

Now, before we multiply ICE’s $1.13 per million fee x 20,000 trades x 10 to get their projected weekly revenue, we need to adjust that 20,000 trades for how much of it will come under the remit of the US SBSDR rules.  Remember that BIS said 27% of the outstanding notional was “US”.  I think that is too aggressive to use in our math.  I recall the SBSDR rules generally say:

Frankly, I have to guess here.  How much of the CDS market is touched by a US Person?  Is ICE Clear Europe a US Person?  Is Asia really insignificant in CDS?  Will non-US dealers register with the SEC?

So lets assume everyone is a US Person:

$1.13 fee per million    X    20,0000 trades per week     X    Average trade size of 10 million    =    $226,000 per week

Or just under 12 million dollars per year.  However we also must consider the fact that both sides of an uncleared trade need to pay the fee, so lets add 50% to that, which gives us $340,000 per week.  So $17 million dollars per year.

That is if they dominate a market where everyone is considered a US Person.  So not likely.  Probably more like a quarter of the market touching a US person, so perhaps $4 million per year.  Frankly, because ICE are the dominant clearing house for CDS and hence will have to report all cleared trades executed on venue, they probably think it’s better to have $4 million in revenue per year than to have to pay SBSDR fees to another SBSDR!

If anyone sees flaws in my math, please let me know.  Otherwise I am sticking with it.

Summary

Securities based swap trade reporting is coming.  Just when is up in the air but the action starts anytime from later 2016 to mid 2017.

ICE have submitted their application, and it is very thorough.  Their fee structure would seem to not inhibit the market; the implied “tax” to reporting counterparties is on the order of $4 million per year to the market as a whole.  Of course this $4 million does not include the presumable billions in costs to conform with the regulations.  But I am optimistic that outside of the major banks, and particularly for cleared trades, its less of an impact than the first (CFTC) SDR implementation.

And just think of the benefits – we will finally be able to play with real trades and get rid of our filthy napkins.

Lastly, I again ponder whether Clarus should start our own SDR.  We’re a mean and lean fin-tech firm, we could do it.  But of course we’d have to hire lawyers and lobbyists to chase down that $4 million per year revenue.  Let us know what you think, I bet we could arrange a discount to $1.12 per million for you!

Stay informed with our FREE newsletter, subscribe here.

Exit mobile version