Author information:
Marcell Béli: KELER CCP, Market Risk Analyst (at the time the article was written). E-mail: beli.marcell@gmail.com
Kata Váradi: Corvinus University of Budapest, Associate Professor; KELER CCP, External Adviser. E-mail: kata.varadi@uni-corvinus.hu
Abstract:
Our article presents a methodology for determining the initial margin requirement that complies with the EMIR regulation in effect since 2012, while also taking into account market participants’ demands and needs in connection with establishing the initial margin. The task of central counterparties that operate behind stock exchanges is to take over the counterparty risk from market participants. In order to manage the emerging risks, central counterparties operate a multilevel guarantee system, one key element of which is the initial margin. From the perspective of market participants, the main requirement is that the value of the margin reflect market developments and remain stable over time, if possible. Another requirement is that its value be determined objectively, so that market participants can easily reproduce it, i.e. it should contain as few expert decisions as possible and should be uniform with respect to all product types. We will show in the article through the example of some securities how a potential methodology is structured, and how the individual parameters can be determined in a way that satisfies the interests and the requirements of all stakeholders, i.e. regulators, market participants and the central counterparty.
Cite as (APA):
Béli, M., & Váradi, K. (2017). A Possible Methodology for Determining the Initial Margin. Financial and Economic Review, 16(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.25201/FER.16.2.119147
Column:
Study
Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) codes:
G15, G17, G18
Keywords:
central counterparty, initial margin, EMIR, procyclicality
References:
Acerbi, C. – Székely, B. (2014): Backtesting Expected Shortfall. MSCI working paper, 2014.
Acerbi, C. – Tasche, D. (2002): On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking &Finance, 26(7): 1487–1503.
Artzner, P. – Delbaen, F. – Eber, J.-M. – Heath, D. (1997): Thinking coherently. Risk, 10: 68–71.
Artzner, P. – Delbaen, F. – Eber, J.M. – Heath, D. (1999): Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3): 203–228.
Berlinger, E. – Dömötör, B. – Illés, F. – Váradi, K. (2016): A tőzsdei elszámolóházak vesztesége (The loss from central clearing houses). Közgazdasági Szemle, 63(9): 993–1010.
Frey, R. – McNeil, A.J. (2002): VaR and expected shortfall in portfolios of dependent credit risks: conceptual and practical insights. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7): 1317–1334.
Gneiting, T. (2011): Making and evaluating point forecasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 106. No. 494: 746–762.
Hakkio, C.S. – Keeton, W.R. (2009): Financial stress: what is it, how can it be measured, and why does it matter? Economic Review, 94(2): 5–50.
Holló, D. – Kremer, M. – Lo Duca, M. (2012): CISS – a composite indicator of systemic stress in the financial system. Working Paper Series No. 1426 (March), European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1426.pdf?6d36165d0aa9ae601070927f3ab799fc. Downloaded: 17 August 2016.
Illing, M. – Liu, Y. (2006): Measuring financial stress in a developed country: An application to Canada. Journal of Financial Stability, 2(3): 243–265.
Jorion, P. (2007): Value at risk: the new benchmark for managing financial risk. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Education; New York, p. 624.
KELER CCP website: https://english.kelerkszf.hu/Risk Management/Multinet/Elements of the guarantee system/. Downloaded: 17 August 2016.
Oet, M.V. – Dooley, J.M. – Ong, S.J. (2015): The Financial Stress Index: Identification of Systemic Risk Conditions. Risks, 3(3): 420–444.
Pflug, G.C. (2000): Some remarks on the value-at-risk and the conditional value-at-risk. In: Probabilistic constrained optimization. Springer US, pp. 272–281.
Szűcs, N.Á. (2006): VaR kritika lépésről lépésre (A step-by-step criticism of the VaR). Study prepared for the Kochmeister Competition of the Budapest Stock Exchange, Budapest.
Yamai, Y. – Yoshiba, T. (2005): Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: A practical perspective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(4): 997–1015.
Ziegel, J.F. (2016): Coherence and elicitability. Mathematical Finance, 26(4), October: 901–918 (Version of Record online: 3 September 2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12080