IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ7/7919491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cost–benefit analysis of anti-procyclicality: analyzing approaches to procyclicality reduction in central counterparty initial margin models

Author

Listed:
  • David Murphy
  • Nicholas Vause

Abstract

Following a period of relative calm, many derivative users received large margin calls as financial market volatility spiked amidst the onset of the Covid-19 global pandemic in March 2020. This reinvigorated the policy debate about dampening such “procyclicality†of margin requirements. In this paper, we suggest how margin setters and policy makers might measure procyclicality and target particular levels of it by recalibrating parameters in a margin model to reduce its procyclicality or by applying an anti-procyclicality tool. The different options reduce procyclicality by varying amounts, and do so at different costs, which we measure using the average additional margin required over the cycle. This allows us to perform a cost–benefit analysis of the options. We illustrate this using a commonly used type of initial margin model, called filtered historical simulation value at risk. We present the costs and benefits of varying a key model parameter and applying a number of different antiprocyclicality tools to this model, including those in EU legislation. Once margin setters have settled on a model design that manages procyclicality at an acceptable cost, we suggest that they should disclose to their counterparties the behavior of their preferred models, including the potential margin calls they generate in stress, as an aid to liquidity planning.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ7:7919491
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2022-01/A_cost--benefit_analysis_of_anti-procyclicality_final.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ7:7919491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-financial-market-infrastructures .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.