Clearing houses — institutions that guarantee trades — have been championed by regulators and industry bodies as a great way to centralise and deal with derivatives risk in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. But in the week of the 10th anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, their reputation was dealt a blow.
Some GlobalCapital sources, including a spokesperson from Nasdaq, have played down Nasdaq’s losses, saying it was an example of a clearing house doing its job.
While that is true — the buffers did work — it is astonishing that the trader was allowed to make such a large bet without an appropriate level of margin and scrutiny from the clearing house . Nasdaq has so far provided limited details on what went wrong.
It is now crucial for wider market confidence that Nasdaq Clearing comes clean with exactly what happened.
Depending on why the loss happened, Nasdaq’s performance might even give rise to a review of risk frameworks for central counterparties.
But given the limited information available, it is too soon to make bold claims about the clearing industry in general.
Historically, clearing houses have generally been effective gatekeepers of derivatives risk, and have provided a good service to the market.
But they are not infallible. Whatever caused this week’s failure, be it poorly calibrated risk models, human error or otherwise, the review must be transparent so that the lessons can be learned across the market.