Archive for 2012

Hedging is Not Meant to be Front-Page News

Monday, May 14th, 2012

This is just a quick note in reaction to the recent announcements by JPMorgan about $2 billion (and counting) trading losses emanating from hedging activities within the bank’s Chief Investment Office. Since hedging is our core business, we at Chatham Financial certainly hope the lesson the world takes away from these revelations is something like “Hedging is something you really need to do properly, or else you could make headlines for all the wrong reasons.” But to be clear, we don’t consider these headlines free advertising. Hedging has no business being on the front page of any newspaper. It is a practice associated with prudent and responsible financial management for many organisations and businesses. Well designed and executed hedging programmes are good for shareholders in that they remove or mitigate unwanted financial risks so that the managers can focus their attention on the risks they need to take as an organisation.

Today, though, we fear that some people will surmise that “Hedging is just another name for gambling and it will catch up to you sooner or later.” If you are tempted to come to this conclusion, we would stress the following points about the concept of hedge effectiveness, which is the central issue to the huge losses revealed in the past few days:

1. A perfectly effective hedge is an instrument that mirrors an unwanted risk. That is, its value will go up or down in the opposite direction with the same degree of magnitude as that of the underlying risk. Sometimes it is feasible to gain perfect or near-perfect hedge effectiveness, sometimes it is not.

2. An ineffective hedge’s value does not perfectly offset the value change in the underlying risk over the term of the hedge. This ineffectiveness can be present at the beginning or it could develop over time. At an extreme, an ineffective hedge’s value could move in the same direction as the underlying risk (compounding the risk), meaning that there could be minimal or no difference between an ineffective hedge and a speculative bet.

3. There are many reasons why a hedge might be ineffective, and this is why the hedge structuring process is critical to any hedge decision-making process. Structuring a hedge to be as effective as possible in all future scenarios is sometimes challenging, but usually this is limited to thin or under-developed markets. Especially when this is the case, all market-based factors should be integral to the hedge instrument structuring and the execution process (on the way in and on the way out), and the effectiveness of the hedge should be monitored on an on-going basis. Having contingency plans in place from the outset is also a good idea when effectiveness is likely to change over the term of a hedge.

It is natural for people to question the status quo when things go awry. Managers around the world will probably order reviews of their companies’ hedging policies and programmes in the near term, and this could be a good thing for businesses generally. In general, we would hope these reviews focus on the effectiveness of the hedges – whether they are doing as they are intended – not whether the hedges are assets or liabilities to the business, which can certainly be a temptation. If you would like to discuss anything related to your hedging policy, specific elements of your hedge programme, or anything related to hedging please do not hesitate to contact someone at Chatham for assistance.

If we can assist you in any way…
Give us a call at 610.925.3120

Regulators Finalize Key Rule on Entity Definitions

Friday, April 27th, 2012

On April 18 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a final rule defining the terms “swap dealers,” “major swap participants,” and “eligible contract participants.” Many market participants were pleased that the regulators appeared to have listened to their concerns and defined the terms “swap dealers” and “major swap participants” in such a way that will not capture the vast majority of derivatives end users. The final rule provided less comfort to small end users, however, who may find that they will no longer be able to enter into over-the-counter derivative transactions because they do not qualify as “eligible contract participants.”

- Major Swap Participants (“MSPs”): The final rule appears to be consistent with Congressional intent to focus the MSP definition on entities whose derivatives use is so material that the failure of any one could undermine financial stability. According to the rule, an entity’s swaps exposure (i.e., current and/or potential future exposure) must exceed thresholds ranging from $1 billion to $8 billion in order for it to be deemed an MSP. The exact thresholds that apply depend on factors such as asset class (e.g., interest rates vs. commodities) and transaction purpose (i.e., hedge vs. non-hedge). Importantly, posted collateral and transaction netting are taken into account when assessing whether a party is an MSP. As a result, many end users will not be deemed MSPs, and those who are at risk of being one could put in place credit support annexes or lower the thresholds above which they must post collateral in order to avoid becoming MSPs.

- Swap Dealer (“SDs”): Dodd-Frank’s SD definition was broadly worded and there was concern that it could include end-user hedging activity. The final rule addressed this concern by focusing the SD definition on those who offer swaps to satisfy customer demand. It also excluded those whose swap dealing activity falls below thresholds that range from $3 billion to $8 billion. Additionally, the CFTC opted to exclude a company’s inter-affiliate swaps when considering whether that company is a swap dealer. These and other changes make it likely that the vast majority of end users will not be deemed SDs .

- Eligible Contract Participant (“ECPs”): Dodd-Frank prohibits non-ECPs (which for companies mean having less than $10 million in total assets or $1 million in net worth) from entering into OTC derivatives transactions that are regulated as “swaps.” End users, some of whom may not qualify as ECPs but in the past were able to enter into OTC derivatives transactions through an exemption known as the “line of business” exemption, were interested to see whether the regulators would amend the definition of ECP in a way that would allow at least some of them to continue using OTC derivative products. The final rule on entity definitions relaxes the restriction slightly by allowing a non-ECP to continue entering into OTC derivatives so long as it is hedging or mitigating commercial risk, all of its owners are ECPs, and has a net worth – which may include the net worth of any of its owners – of at least $1 million. This amendment will help some non-ECPs, but certain end users will be left out.

Although this rule represents an important step for increasing certainty for end users, many questions remain. Chief among them is the cost of hedging, the answer to which will largely be a product of capital and margin rules. Capital costs will be driven by prudential regulators’ rules to implement Basel III, anticipated sometime this year. Margin rules will also be finally determined by prudential regulators, as early as late summer. In the meantime, most end users will likely be pleased to see that regulatory agencies listened to their concerns as they finalized the entity definitions rule.

Higher Swaps Costs Still Likely (Treasury & Risk)

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

Higher Swaps Costs Still Likely

Monday, April 23rd, 2012
Higher Swaps Costs Still Likely: Regulators clear up some uncertainty, but more rules yet to come
By John Hintze
April 20, 2012

…A counterparty’s exposure is typically a small fraction of the swap’s notional, or face, value and that should mean only the very largest swap end users have to register as MSPs. Luke Zubrod, director of Chatham Financial’s regulatory advisory service…
Read More

Corporate Concerns Linger Over Swaps Costs (WSJ CFO Journal)

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

Corporate Concerns Linger Over Swaps Costs

Thursday, April 19th, 2012
Corporate Concerns Linger Over Swaps Costs
By Vipal Monga
April 19, 2012
*Registration may be required

…“This suggests that hedging for non-financial companies will get expensive,” said Luke Zubrod of Chatham Financial, which is advising the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users. “It could force people to weigh the trade-offs.”…
Read More

CFTC Raises Swap Dealer Threshold (MarketsMedia)

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

Smaller Companies Getting a Pass From Tougher Swaps Regulation (Bloomberg)

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

Smaller Companies Getting a Pass From Tougher Swaps Regulation

Thursday, April 19th, 2012
Smaller Companies Getting a Pass From Tougher Swaps Regulation
By Jesse Hamilton and Steven Sloan
April 18, 2012

…“Some of the people that fell in those gray areas, many of them were worried they might get caught up in the swap dealer definition,” said Luke Zubrod, a director at Chatham Financial Corp., which advises companies that use derivatives to reduce risk.
Read More

CFTC Raises Swap Dealer Threshold

Thursday, April 19th, 2012
CFTC Raises Swap Dealer Threshold
By Steve Marlin
April 18, 2012
*Registration Required

…“This is by far the most significant rule that market participants had been anticipating,” Luke Zubrod, director of the derivatives regulatory advisory service at Chatham financial, told Markets Media. Read More