The Swap Regulators Are Coming (Tomorrow)

A reporting rule affecting any fund using swaps comes into effect on Friday, and according to one data aggregation firm, institutional investors may not be ready. 

(October 11, 2012) – One of the many regulations bundled in the Dodd-Frank Act requires any fund holding or transacting swaps and related financial instruments reports them to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 

This rule goes into effect on Friday, October 12, and institutional data aggregation firm Insignis believes most funds are not prepared to start complying. 

“I don’t know how plan sponsors intend to address the rule.” Suzanne Streitz, a senior vice president at Insignis, told aiCIO. “Maybe they will wait to see what their peers do or reach out to their custodians or consulting firms. But we don’t think that either the custodians or the consulting firms have all the information necessary.” 

Swap owners must begin calculating and testing daily positions and exposures for all cleared and uncleared over-the-counter derivative instruments, including non-deliverable foreign exchange forwards. With the rise of liability-driven investing, institutional funds have increasingly taken on the kind of instruments implicated in this regulation, according to Ed Mollahan, a business development consultant with Insignis.  

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

“If you buy a US or foreign bond, for example, that’s fine,” Mollahan says. “But if you decide to hedge the currency exchange rate with a derivative instrument, then that has to be calculated and reported.” The rule lays out three main categories for swap-users, all with different reporting burdens. The first level, or “safe harbor” exemption, requires funds relay their monthly data to regulators every quarter. The next two, a Major Swap Participant (MSP) or a Major Security-Based Swap Participant (MSBSP) require daily data reported quarterly. 

“Plan sponsors think they’ll be covered under the safe harbor because they don’t do enough of these swaps,” Mollahan says, “but the exemption is really just saying you don’t have to perform all of these computations every day, only at the end of the month. In our view, the biggest part of the institutional universe will between the safe harbor guidelines and MSP status…That said, with most large corporations, or even a major state plan, it’s not unusual for them to hold 20,000 individual positions scattered across 20-85 or so portfolios.” 

For those the funds that aren’t quite so deep in the swap game, here are the CFTC’s three criteria to qualify for safe harbor status (Warning: it’s an eye-glazer): 

1. A Restricted Uncollateralized Exposure and Notional Amounts Test: Counterparty agreements must restrict uncollateralized exposure to less than $100 million; and positions are less than $2 billion in any major swap category, and $4 billion in the aggregate. 

2. A Restricted Uncollateralized Exposure and Monthly Calculation Test: Counterparty agreements restrict uncollateralized exposure to less than $200 million; and each month’s “substantial position,” and “substantial counterparty exposure” tests are below the threshold required to be deemed either a MSP or a MSBSP. 

3. A Calculated Uncollateralized Exposure and Notional Amount Test: At month-end the uncollateralized outward exposure in each category is less than $1.5 billion for rate swaps and less that $500 million for each of the other swap categories; and gross potential outward exposure is less than $3 billion for rate swaps and $1 billion or each of the other swap categories. Or, at month-end, the uncollateralized outward exposure across all major swap categories is less than $500 million; and that sum plus total effective notional principal amount for all major security-based swap categories multiplied by 0.15 is less than $1 billion. Or, the uncollateralized outward exposure for positions held with swap dealers is equal to the exposure reported on the most recent reports received from such swap dealers; and the uncollateralized outward exposure [for positions that are not reflected in any report of exposure] shall be calculated as uncollateralized exposure plus total effective notional principal amount for all major security-based swap categories multiplied by 0.15 and the result is less than $1 billion. 

How Pensions Are Hurting Industrial Companies

Pensions are throwing a spanner in the works for companies already struggling against the downturn.

(October 11, 2012) — Industrial companies in the United Kingdom have some of the worst pension fund deficits, despite efforts to reduce them, which could impact their prospects for growth and very survival, research has shown.

Pension fund deficits represent over 8% of an industrial company’s market capitalisation, on average in the FTSE350, according to investment consulting firm and actuary Barnett Waddingham.

This is the second highest percentage after consumer cyclical companies, Barnett Waddingham said, but noted that this sector has seen company share prices fall sharply as a result of a drop in spending on the high street by recession-struck shoppers.

For ever other sector, the average pension deficit was equivalent to 4% or less of the market capitalisation of the company.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

This is an important consideration for company bosses when addressing financing, the consultants said, and could make it trickier for them to borrow in order to expand – or even continue to operate.

“One potential consequence for a company with a large pension scheme deficit disclosed on the balance sheet is the impact it will have on the company’s gearing ratio (a measure often used to assess financial risk or longer-term solvency),” the report from Barnett Waddingham said. “The gearing ratio can be an important indicator for companies looking to raise additional finance and the pension scheme deficit can have implications for debt covenant restrictions. At the margin, an increased gearing ratio can lead to a higher cost of borrowing.”

Industrial companies have been doing more than most to try and reduce pension deficits over the past couple of years. Last year, those in the FTSE350 used an average 40% of free cash flow to pay down the shortfall – the second-highest average payment in the corporate sector. Energy companies paid an average of 68% of their free cash flow in deficit contributions last year – a 20% increase compared to a year earlier.

Across the FTSE350, shortfall contributions have become 30% more expensive than the payments made for future pension benefits, Barnett Waddingham said.

Per member, companies in the FTSE350 are paying £2,600 a year for future benefits, and £3,400 to clear the backlog accrued in the deficit.

In 2010, 16% of companies operating a defined benefit pension paid more than 100% of free cash flow to try and plug the funding gap – in 2011, 28% of them contributed this much.

The report said: “The worsening of these figures can be attributed to both an increase in funding deficits for the majority of companies and an increase in the number of companies where free cash flow is now negative. For many companies contributions have changed significantly between 2010 and 2011.”

Yesterday, the Pension Protection Fund revealed that there were 5,248 schemes in deficit at the end of September, and 1,184 fully funded or in surplus in the UK.  

«